My Girl V

Rhinotherunt wrote in post #2141036
Thanks! If I had the money I would buy everyone an 85mm 1.8.

I'm the first one on your list right?

Art

Art Rodriguez wrote in post #2142078
I'm the first one on your list right?

Art

Yeah... right after me, my GF, grandfather, dad....

Too bad I am barely able to buy it for myself...

The image was many stops overexposed or not nearly deep enough in your computer prosessing program. I'm posting my version which shows your ratio and contrast were there ... just way too light.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

...That looks way to dark to me...:p

D. Craig Flory wrote in post #2142772
The image was many stops overexposed or not nearly deep enough in your computer prosessing program. I'm posting my version which shows your ratio and contrast were there ... just way too light.
D. Craig Flory C.P.P. Certified, Cr.Photog., ASP
loryphotog@mindspring.​com

I cannot see the image posted. Unfortunately, it is blocked on my server. Can you attach the image? By the way I am working on calibrated monitors. My repost of the original image looks right on, but I am willing to see what you came up with.

codex0 wrote in post #2143281
...That looks way to dark to me...:p

I agree; too dark.. but not way too dark

codex0 wrote in post #2143281
...That looks way to dark to me...:p

tuggnet wrote in post #2146062
I agree; too dark.. but not way too dark

Unfortunately, I cannot see what he posted. How does it look compared to my post? My version is faithful to how things we in reality. Thanks!

tuggnet wrote in post #2146062
I agree; too dark.. but not way too dark

Agreed, actually... I was going to edit the post, but figured it probably wouldn't make too much of a difference

I think that the adjustment made helps to bring some of the highlight and near-highlight areas more into the midrange, but drops a lot of the midrange and low-midrange data. I think that if curves were used, an image with a somewhat better tonal range could be achieved.

Rhinotherunt wrote in post #2146233
Unfortunately, I cannot see what he posted. How does it look compared to my post? My version is faithful to how things we in reality. Thanks!

Do you start the url for this site as www.photography-on... ? If so, take off the www. Someone else on the forum posted that tip a few days ago and it cleared this problem up for me completely.

tuggnet wrote in post #2146062
I agree; too dark.. but not way too dark

It's too dark, but the right idea as the original is too bright IMO. Somewhere in between.

Bob_A wrote in post #2148664
Do you start the url for this site as www.photography-on... ? If so, take off the [URL]www. Someone else on the forum posted that tip a few days ago and it cleared this problem up for me completely.

I do not use the [URL]www. The server I use at work blocks it. I cannot do anything about it...

Hi group;

It looks gorgeous on my monitor ( Viewsonic Professional and calibrated for my pro lab) I'll try to add the image again.

D. Craig Flory PPA Certified, Cr.Photog., ASP
loryphotog@mindspring.​com

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Must be just your personal taste then. It's too dark for me ... not by much though.

D. Craig Flory wrote in post #2149605
Hi group;

It looks gorgeous on my monitor ( Viewsonic Professional and calibrated for my pro lab) I'll try to add the image again.

Well, it does seem somewhat dark to me. I believe that something in between would be right. Thanks for the comments and suggestions everyone. If anyone feels like playing with the full size version it is located: http://www.photo.net …?photo_id=50711​92&size=lg

The image is still in Adobe RGB and will need to be converted to sRGB

Still not quite right, but here is my 2 minute attempt:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO