It took me a while to figure out how to post at under 100kb. I hope this turned out. I took it in the Botanical Gardens- no tripods allowed. I did some pp work on it. I darkened the shadows. Appreciate any feedback.
CarolP Senior Member 650 posts Joined Mar 2006 Location: Buffalo, New York More info | Apr 20, 2006 14:26 | #1 It took me a while to figure out how to post at under 100kb. I hope this turned out. I took it in the Botanical Gardens- no tripods allowed. I did some pp work on it. I darkened the shadows. Appreciate any feedback. CarolP
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Hellashot Goldmember 4,617 posts Likes: 2 Joined Sep 2004 Location: USA More info | Apr 20, 2006 20:48 | #2 Permanent banHOw much did you darken those shadows? The white flowers on the right side are a distraction. I would ahve gotten closer to the blue flowers to avoid having any other colored flowers in the frame. There seems to be some blown highlights in this shot. 5D, Drebel, EOS-3, K1000
LOG IN TO REPLY |
beachgirl Goldmember 1,099 posts Joined Mar 2006 Location: S.F. Bay Area (south bay) More info | Apr 21, 2006 18:27 | #3 Hi CarolP, I think this would be a nice pic if the highlights weren't blown. And maybe focus on the blue flowers more.I'm not one to critique much but I only notice becuz I do this alot myself(newbie here). I've noticed that when the sun is high over my head I get pics like this. And blown highlights.JMHO.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
llaamaboy Member 148 posts Joined Mar 2006 Location: California More info | Apr 21, 2006 18:53 | #4 Wow... what a place to photograph. Llaamaboy
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 21, 2006 22:16 | #5 Thanks for the feedback. CarolP
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jbkalla Goldmember 2,831 posts Likes: 1 Joined Feb 2006 Location: Elizabeth, Colorado, USA More info | Apr 21, 2006 22:52 | #6 Don't know if this is better or not. Too much saturation? John
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 23, 2006 15:48 | #7 I don't know if I like it better or not either. The blue certainly does stand out now but I think I notice the blown out edges more now. I guess next time I better just take a better photo to begin with. Thanks for your help. CarolP
LOG IN TO REPLY |
xft.y Member 113 posts Joined Feb 2006 More info | Apr 23, 2006 19:38 | #8 just to confirm this (sorry for threadjack)...blown highlights: total overexposure of a region causing effective "white out" with no actual image info? 350D, kit lens, 50mm 1.8, 28-105 3.5-4.6. Yeah. Thats it. You people with long lists just make me feel inadequate.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
llaamaboy Member 148 posts Joined Mar 2006 Location: California More info | xft.y wrote: just to confirm this (sorry for threadjack)...blown highlights: total overexposure of a region causing effective "white out" with no actual image info? PS. good composition too ![]() Blown highlights with no detail - white as white can be. Also called Clipped. One very nice thing about RAW (and other graphic formats?) processing is you can set the clipping points. That is, you can see where and how much "blown whites" you get and can actually set the amount of clipped whites and black (no shadow detail). Its very close to the detail one might get following Ansel Adems processing/printing system. Llaamaboy
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2432 guests, 103 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||