|
krillen
Mar 11, 2004, 4:19 PM
Post #2 of 7
(1620 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
Suggestions:
1.) Crop the left side much closer to the rope, and the top inch or so off. The Rock is wasted space in this pic since you metered off the sky.
2.) I think the shadow detail in this in lost. Try cranking the contrast and intesity/saturation and making this a sillouette
3.) If you dont' crop at least remove that distracting item from the bottom left corner.
To improve this while shooting:
1.) Meter off of the rock/climber and not the sky
2.) use fill flash to illuminate the rock and climber
3.) Take one shot metered off the rock/climber and one shot metered on the sky and compile teh two in Photoshop after the fact.
The main problem you are running into is the HUGE contrast difference between the sky and you subject. It's too much for film to handle.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Mar 11, 2004, 9:16 PM
Post #3 of 7
(1620 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
these are good suggestions for shooting conditions. Let me look at the self-rescue post-process options.
Your problem is this
http://people.cs.tamu.edu/...905/critic/histo.jpg
Your histogram has two peaks on the opposite ends of the scale. Film or digital sensor are limited than human eye, and we try to put as much as we can around the midtones. In your case, you almost do not have anything there. The rescue process is basically trying to shift stuff into the midtones.
Playing with brightness/contrast will shift your histogram in one direction, so you can shift brights, and have a nice silhuette on a cloudy sky. Or you can try shifting darks, and have somewhat visible rock and climber on a white overexposed sky.
Or you have nonlinear options. Brightness/contrast is a linear mapping, shifting your histogram in one direction. Curves on the other hand, will give you nonlinear control, letting you pull both curves to the center
http://people.cs.tamu.edu/...905/critic/curve.jpg
Or you can make a mask, soften it, and edit bright and dark parts seperately. Another easier option is contrast masking. Check here for a very nice article and how-to.
BTW, as i played with your image, it has more information on the brights than darks (which you can tell from the histogram peaks as well). So the obvious choice would be rescuing the sky and going for the silhuette as krill suggested. If it is film, you might try scanning it on a better scanner and get some more information for the darker parts using 12 or 16 bit scanning. Usually film is a lot more flexible on the dark parts then scanners can capture...
|
|
|
|
|
merock
Mar 12, 2004, 11:42 PM
Post #4 of 7
(1620 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2003
Posts: 234
|
agree with above comments... go for silloutte, rock is kinda wasted space.... also if PSing, tweak that saturation a bit and squeeze some blues from the sky, it'd make the sky better, just don't over do it.
|
|
|
|
|
straightedgeteen
Mar 25, 2004, 12:53 AM
Post #5 of 7
(1620 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 8, 2002
Posts: 367
|
cool shot just a little under exposed
|
|
|
|
|
supasteve
Mar 27, 2004, 12:12 AM
Post #6 of 7
(1620 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2002
Posts: 17
|
thanks for all your comments everyone and the helpful tutorial, i never knew how to do that stuff before. i messed around with it and this is what i came up with, please let me know what you think
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=28470
http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/photos/jump.cgi?Detailed=28470
|
|
|
|
|
merock
Mar 27, 2004, 11:35 PM
Post #7 of 7
(1620 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2003
Posts: 234
|
The cropping is gooder fo sho, but now I'm starting to see some greens in the sky and it's looking very digitalized. You have to be careful of that when messing with PS. I'm also seeing alot of lossness in the image. Probably means that it wasn't high enough res when you shot it so when you croped in the image became pixelated or you're resaving multiple times in the JPEG format. It's looking a lot better tho.
|
|
|
|
|
|
