Russ, I'm no expert, but Photoshop Elements 4.0 will get you what you need for under $100. Regards, Bob S.
On 4/4/07, Russell Kerstetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > yeah, I am working in iPhoto. I have only been using it since my > Lightroom beta expired, and really, this is the first image that I > have processed with it. (And with only one image done, I can already > see the huge limitations.) > > Russ > > On 4/4/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The land is still muddy. You need to treat the midtones independently > > of the highlights. You can do that with the shadow/highlight tool or > > with curves if you're working in PhotoShop. > > Paul > > On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:51 AM, Russell Kerstetter wrote: > > > > > Here is a new, brighter version. It is still a little dark, but much > > > more than this and the clouds are just a white mess. > > > > > > http://www.avocadohead.com/piclinks/spare.html > > > > > > Thanks again to those who commented. > > > > > > Russ > > > > > > On 4/2/07, Russell Kerstetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Shel and Godders- > > >> > > >> Thanks for taking the time to show me some alternative solutions. I > > >> like both of your different takes, I also like that you were able to > > >> brighten the whole thing up without losing the cloud detail. I > > >> fiddled around for a while this evening, but was not able to > > >> duplicate > > >> our results. I can brighten it up some, but by the time I start to > > >> lose cloud detail the water in the lake is still too dark. But that > > >> may be the price I have to pay for using free software :) So I will > > >> have to mess around with this some more again tomorrow evening and > > >> see > > >> what I can come up with. Thanks again. > > >> > > >> Russ > > >> > > >> On 4/2/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> Your original was rendered extremely dark, Russell. It's a simple > > >>> landscape scene ... rendered up with a bit bit of balancing between > > >>> water and sky, you get this rather nice, rather serene feel out of > > >>> it. I took the liberty of doing a couple of edits to give you an > > >>> idea > > >>> where I'd go with it... It includes your original so you can see the > > >>> differences easily. > > >>> > > >>> http://homepage.mac.com/godders/rk2882/ > > >>> > > >>> This is a case where if I was using Lightroom I could likely do most > > >>> of what I did with its tools, and presuming I had the RAW file to > > >>> work with, but with just an 8bit image file to work with Photoshop > > >>> allows the kind of gentle, selective editing required to bring > > >>> this up. > > >>> > > >>> 1- Don't underexpose. Determine where the brightest elements are > > >>> that > > >>> you want to retain detail in and expose correctly for that ... > > >>> Placing exposure properly like that takes a little time to figure > > >>> out > > >>> and if you're not sure you should bracket exposure around it. The > > >>> histogram shows you an approximation based on values in the JPEG > > >>> preview that is rendered for every file, but if you're capturing in > > >>> RAW you can work with what looks like a little bit of highlight > > >>> overexposures on the histogram. It's not rigorously calibrated, you > > >>> have to work with it to understand what you're seeing. > > >>> > > >>> 2- Yes, this is a problem. Your screen looks overly bright compared > > >>> to the ambient light and that's tricking your eye. Better to > > >>> calibrate and profile the screen in modest, normal room light and > > >>> work that way so that your eyes and the screen are at proper > > >>> luminance values. I calibrate my screen for 140 lumens, gamma 1.8 > > >>> and > > >>> 5500K white point in normal, indirect room illumination. Move any > > >>> light that glares on the screen to a different position so that's > > >>> not > > >>> a problem. This will make a huge difference in how your photos > > >>> come out. > > >>> > > >>> Godfrey > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Apr 2, 2007, at 12:04 PM, Russell Kerstetter wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Thanks Bruce, PJ, Paul, Markus Shel and Brian for being honest. > > >>>> When > > >>>> I look at it objectively, I agree that it is mostly an > > >>>> uninteresting > > >>>> picture. Maybe next time I will try the 'Auto Compose' function > > >>>> on my > > >>>> DL. > > >>>> > > >>>> I have been told several times, that my pictures are too dark. > > >>>> To be > > >>>> clear, we are talking a few stops dark, but not black or > > >>>> anything like > > >>>> that, right? > > >>>> > > >>>> I think there are two issues here (if anyone cares to comment > > >>>> further): > > >>>> > > >>>> 1) Foremost, I think I have a tendency to underexpose, > > >>>> specifically > > >>>> on shots like this. I really like detail in the clouds and am > > >>>> afraid > > >>>> of losing it even when the clouds are not the most important > > >>>> aspect of > > >>>> the picture. IIRC the histogram for this shot had the highlights > > >>>> touching the first bar from the right (which is a half-stop right?) > > >>>> but I think that what you are seeing on your screen is probably > > >>>> darker > > >>>> than just a half-stop. > > >>>> > > >>>> 2) I usually work in a dark room because I hate glare off the > > >>>> screen. > > >>>> I have been running my mac on gamma 1.8 instead of 2.2, but from > > >>>> what > > >>>> I am hearing I think that is a negligible part of my problem. > > >>>> > > >>>> Russ > > >>>> (here to learn) > > >>>> > > >>>> On 4/1/07, Russell Kerstetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>> This is a reservoir/lake near my mother-in-law's house. Also > > >>>>> this is > > >>>>> the first photo I have processed with iPhoto. I was using > > >>>>> Lightroom > > >>>>> beta, iPhoto definately has less features and some irritating > > >>>>> limitations, but it does have the 'touch-up' tool, which is pretty > > >>>>> handy. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> http://www.avocadohead.com/piclinks/IMGP2882.html > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Honest comments please, thanks for looking. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Russ > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> Legacy Air, Inc. > > >>>>> 11900 Airport Way > > >>>>> Broomfield Colorado 80021 > > >>>>> (303) 404-0277 > > >>>>> fax (303) 404-0280 > > >>>>> www.legacy-air.com > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Legacy Air, Inc. > > >>>> 11900 Airport Way > > >>>> Broomfield Colorado 80021 > > >>>> (303) 404-0277 > > >>>> fax (303) 404-0280 > > >>>> www.legacy-air.com > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >>>> [email protected] > > >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >>> [email protected] > > >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Legacy Air, Inc. > > >> 11900 Airport Way > > >> Broomfield Colorado 80021 > > >> (303) 404-0277 > > >> fax (303) 404-0280 > > >> www.legacy-air.com > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Legacy Air, Inc. > > > 11900 Airport Way > > > Broomfield Colorado 80021 > > > (303) 404-0277 > > > fax (303) 404-0280 > > > www.legacy-air.com > > > > > > -- > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > [email protected] > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > -- > Legacy Air, Inc. > 11900 Airport Way > Broomfield Colorado 80021 > (303) 404-0277 > fax (303) 404-0280 > www.legacy-air.com > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
