>Believe me, as someone who has magic-wanded out more backgrounds that >I care to admit... it works really well SOME of the time. Other times >you a messing around with the magic wand sensitivity setting to keep >it from grabbing portions of your object. > >Bruce is correct. Your images are seriously underexposed. The light >table should be white. It's the same principle as shooting something >on a snow bank. The meter will make the snowbank 18% grey and >underexpose the subject. That's what you've got here. You'll save a >lot of work in post if you expose correctly. Either get off automatic >to manual or use exposure compensation. > >Also, if you have photoshop you may find that working with levels or >curves (to define your "white") will save you a lot of time with the >magic wand. Trust me, you don't want to rely on the magic wand. > >Darren Addy >Kearney, Nebraska
I am shooting in Manual mode. Yes, the Magic Wand has been useful. So many circular objects are more easily cut with the oval selection tool. As to the exposure, I only saw that on a couple of shots, obvious on the #3 with the PL. I took it off and have not put it back on. Shots #1 & #2, once separated from the background (about 10 seconds of work) displays the detail perfectly for the customer's application. The sense of being underexposed went away with the image on a different background -- pure white. The paper should not be all white, but perhaps white-er than it is. I will be adding some reflectors in the next day. Still, the boss is more than happy with the results achieved. Tomorrow I will put up one of the better, later pics with improved exposure. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose" -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
