Beach Hat

[Tuna]

All comments and critique greatly appreciated.

Tuna

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/redboys/BeachHat241.jpg

[pcDigiMan]

One HAT, One Person and SAND would be a better combination for me... then the hat would stand out more. I am being distracted from the hat due to other parts of the image.

[Tuna]

One HAT, One Person and SAND would be a better combination for me... then the hat would stand out more. I am being distracted from the hat due to other parts of the image.

pcDigiMan - thank you for your critique. However I'm having trouble with what you think will improve it. There IS one hat, person and sand... Are you distracted by everything else in the image? Are you suggesting I clone everything else out? You say you are distracted from the hat - but it is the most prominent part of the image, so... Are you hoping to see ONLY the hat due to the title?

I appreciate your thoughts but I guess I am not sure what you mean.

Tuna

[Tuna]

Hi Bloo. Thanks for your comment. That "old" look is what appealed to me as well but wasn't sure if the image had any impact...

I've been around...mainly posting my stuff in B&W.

Thanks again.

Tuna

[Tuna]

Those who are critiquing this image on other forums have noticed that the white at the bottom is discordant with the rest of the image. I have to agree.

I have tried a fix - better?

Tuna

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/redboys/BeachHat242.jpg

[MCB]

To me the image looks like chrome. It still looks like chrome, except that there is no blown out highlight. If correcting reality is better, then version #2 is better.

To me the original looks like an overexposed towel. If it was shot in RAW mode, recovering the detail might not be much of a problem. Even if it wasn't raw you can frequently get some detail back if it's not totally blown out. So I don't think he's altered reality in any significant way. It still looks like a towel, but now there's more detail and it doesn't distract the eye from the focus of the picture. That being my subjective impression, I like the updated version much better. :)

If you think the updated version looks like chrome, you might need to adjust your monitor. It clearly has a very towel-like texture from where I'm sitting. Not chrome-like at all. Clearly a towel.

As far as "correcting reality" is concerned, no camera has anything close to the dynamic range of the human eye (which I'm sure you know). So compressing the dynamic range of the image so that it can be reproduced by modern printing/display technology doesn't seem like you're "correcting reality" so much as reproducing reality in the only way possible given the restraints of current technology. Seems pretty unavoidable to me. And even if you consider it bad to "correct reality" it might be excusable for a better picture. But opinions vary, clearly. ;)

[Tuna]

Thanks for the comments, guys.

By "chrome" I believe Bloo Dog meant that the colors and feel of the image made him think it was slide film and he is right - this was shot on Kodachrome.

Tuna

[Tuna]

Bloo - it was K-25.

And now I am going to say how I recovered the towel, texture and all. Please avert your eyes.

I simply took the original scanned file and did curves/levels/color adjustments until the towel looked like it should. Then I sized the file to match my initial post, used the magic wand to select the fixed-towel and moved it on top of the blown-out-towel, merged the layers and did some blending/blurring and cloning of the edges to finish the image.

If you've looked and it and your head has exploded, well,...then I am to blame. Sorry.

Tuna

[PhotosGuy]

I like what you did with the towel, but the shot doesn't do a lot for me, either. Don't worry about that. One guy hated my PSed car shots, too! ;-)