If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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----- |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
overexposed K100D shot?
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". |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
overexposed K100D shot?
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
overexposed K100D shot?
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/ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
overexposed K100D shot?
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" |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
overexposed K100D shot?
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
overexposed K100D shot?
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) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
overexposed K100D shot?
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
overexposed K100D shot?
I'd be inclined to say it's underexposed... ;-)
-- Skip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
overexposed K100D shot?
"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..... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon A40 Overexposed | Frank | Digital Photography | 4 | December 20th 05 12:38 AM |
problems scanning overexposed 35MM | justareader | Digital Photography | 13 | March 9th 05 09:46 PM |
overexposed in macro | Jason K. Lambrou | Digital Photography | 8 | January 24th 05 10:16 PM |
oops. Overexposed VC 160 | Michael R. Lachance | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 8 | September 28th 04 09:33 PM |
Underexposed is Better Than Overexposed with 64T??? | Dr. Slick | Large Format Photography Equipment | 13 | May 16th 04 04:03 AM |