overexposed K100D shot?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

m II wrote:


http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368


mike

Well, I does not look overexposed to me. But the lighting on this shot
seems rather bad. Either because of reflections off of colored objects
or mixed source lighting.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFa9Cku4tRirKTPYwRAugsAJsF+HWUXLJ8QA+EUHpwXn y2baRJvwCfT4EG
YTU019Y6cEibPvtmH36w6jQ=
=ldcS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bill Funk wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 04:16:20 GMT, m II wrote:


http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368


mike

Go to the "Original" size, and look around.
If this is an example of what the K100D is capable of, I'd steer
clear.

I have one, and indeed, it does have its "issues".

Bill Funk wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 04:16:20 GMT, m II wrote:


http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368


mike

Go to the "Original" size, and look around.
If this is an example of what the K100D is capable of, I'd steer
clear.
I assume you are referring to the nasty JPG artifacts and posterising in
the red area? Don't take too much notice of that image - it's
compressed to about 700kb, whereas the normal JPG's from the K100D
average about 2.5MB. Therefore the image has at the very least been the
victim of some severe JPG compression - goodness knows what else has
been done to it.

The image is in the Adobe RGB space. If viewed in a browser, the colors
will be more normal looking, so people may be talking about two different
appearances of the same image. In Photoshop, the image is too red and
saturated.

I used curves in Lab mode to get the skin tones to a nominal hue and
saturation. I converted the original image to sRGB so that it will look
about the same on the web as in Photoshop:

http://mike.russell-home.net/tmp/Model_1/

This is not a professional shot from a lighting and composition standpoint,
but you are obviously experimenting with interesting effects, and your
skills are definitely approaching that level. Keep at it, and try to get
what you can from the criticisms others throw at you here.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:23:55 +1000, Graham Fountain
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 04:16:20 GMT, m II wrote:


http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368


mike

Go to the "Original" size, and look around.
If this is an example of what the K100D is capable of, I'd steer
clear.
I assume you are referring to the nasty JPG artifacts and posterising in
the red area? Don't take too much notice of that image - it's
compressed to about 700kb, whereas the normal JPG's from the K100D
average about 2.5MB. Therefore the image has at the very least been the
victim of some severe JPG compression - goodness knows what else has
been done to it.

Don't take too much notice? It was presented to us for just that
purpose.
When my shots are downsized, they don't get that posterization.
Is the mottling actually present in the model's legs?
Same for the chest in
http://www.pbase.com/jackschouten/image/65539065
Look at
http://www.pbase.com/jackschouten/image/64991665
too. What's with the left arm/side of the model? Was it moving? Along
with the hair moving in the same exact way?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

mogh baba wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:48:56 -0800, "G.T."
wrote:

m II wrote:


http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368


Ugly photo, ugly model, so who cares if it's over or underexposed?



She is gorgeous, you have to wash your eyes.

Yuck. Dyed blond hair, fake tits, and overplucked eyebrows is NOT
gorgeous...

-Gniewko

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:12:34 -0800, lubecki wrote:

mogh baba wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:48:56 -0800, "G.T."
wrote:

m II wrote:


http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368


Ugly photo, ugly model, so who cares if it's over or underexposed?



She is gorgeous, you have to wash your eyes.

Yuck. Dyed blond hair, fake tits, and overplucked eyebrows is NOT
gorgeous...

In the immortal words of Austin Powers, "m-m-m-m-m-m-m-o-o-o-o-o-o-le".

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Colin_D wrote:

m II wrote:


http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368



If you think that shot is overexposed, you aint seen nuthin, boy.


I was being modest...



mike

I'd be inclined to say it's underexposed... ;-)

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

"Skip" wrote in message
...
I'd be inclined to say it's underexposed... ;-)

I saved it, imported it into Photoshop, and lightened it up, but it didn't
really improve it. Sometimes a little too dark in the shadows is
intriguing.....I like her just the way she is.....