|
extrememountaineer
May 28, 2003, 9:10 PM
Post #1 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 377
|
There has been a couple of comments about this picture having a selection line wandering around through the middle of the picture with the bottom half being a bit washed out. I really don't see it...I did do a selection line to sharpen the upper half of the picture after butchering the resizing-I am terrible at this digital stuff. Can we kind of take a poll here and see if everyone else sees it? Maybe I need to get my eyes checked. I am not saying it doesn't exist, I just don't see it on my monitor.
http://www.photo.net/...o_id=1521151&size=md
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 28, 2003, 9:19 PM
Post #2 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
On my flat panel monitor the line is quite obvious.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
May 28, 2003, 9:20 PM
Post #3 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
One of the first things the user manual that comes with Photoshop tells you to do after you install the program is calibrate your monitor using the Gamma control panel that comes with the program, did you do that? You must not be the only one who doesn't see the mask artifact, or whatever it is, because people are giving that shot some pretty high marks...either that or you're being patronized by your buds...
|
|
|
|
|
drector
May 28, 2003, 9:27 PM
Post #4 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
Can't see it with my default settings but I can clearly see it by adjusting the color balance on the monitor.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
May 28, 2003, 9:32 PM
Post #5 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
i can also see it after messing a little with color setting, but not on default.
|
|
|
|
|
crazywacky
May 28, 2003, 9:36 PM
Post #6 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 31, 2002
Posts: 409
|
I took the liberty of highlighting the selection line for the graphically challenged...
Hope you don't mind... :-)
http://houseofmayhem.ods.org/images/opinion.jpg
Basically it looks like the lower half is waaaaay darker than the uper half of the photo.
You should have shapened the entire photo.
It may have turned out a little cleaner...
Later.
|
|
|
|
|
holmeslovesguinness
May 28, 2003, 9:36 PM
Post #7 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2002
Posts: 548
|
Now that you mention it, yeah, I can see what you're talking about - looks like a selection mask outline from an image editing program.
|
|
|
|
|
kindredlion
May 28, 2003, 9:37 PM
Post #8 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2002
Posts: 146
|
Yuppers I see the line strait up... Using an LCD Screen..
Don't see it on my CRT monitor without adjustments...
Take Air,
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
May 28, 2003, 9:41 PM
Post #9 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
I wonder what % of people who vote on photos have properly calibrated monitors...velly intelesting...
|
|
|
|
|
climbinghiker
May 28, 2003, 9:43 PM
Post #10 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 13, 2003
Posts: 6
|
Sorry to say, but I see it aswell...otherwise an awsome pic!
|
|
|
|
|
extrememountaineer
May 28, 2003, 9:47 PM
Post #11 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 377
|
Okay, I see what you are talking about. That is not a selection line, that is the shadow line. It was early in the AM and the sun wasn't even hitting the tops of the trees yet. I just pulled out the original slide and that line is in the original image. No wonder I didn't see it, I was looking for something else.
|
|
|
|
|
alpiner
May 28, 2003, 9:47 PM
Post #12 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2003
Posts: 210
|
Also consider that Macs use a different gamma than PCs so a pic that looks good on one may not on the other. But reflections are always darker than the main subject, which is why a split density filter is needed (or photoshop).
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
May 28, 2003, 9:53 PM
Post #13 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*Okay, I see what you are talking about. That is not a selection line, that is the shadow line. It was early in the AM and the sun wasn't even hitting the tops of the trees yet.*
WHAT? You're outta your mind. Are you telling me that if I was standing there with you when you took that shot that line would be there? If that was the shadow line then the trees would be in the sun. Again, is your gamma control panel up and running? Play with the settings and you'll see the line.
|
|
|
|
|
crazywacky
May 28, 2003, 9:59 PM
Post #14 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 31, 2002
Posts: 409
|
In reply to: Okay, I see what you are talking about. That is not a selection line, that is the shadow line. It was early in the AM and the sun wasn't even hitting the tops of the trees yet. I just pulled out the original slide and that line is in the original image. No wonder I didn't see it, I was looking for something else.
I see the shadow line as well. But the selection line is higher in the image, actually it looks to be halfway up the trees.
If you can, post a link to the original, un-manipulated image and compare... Or resize it to fit the same specs without sharpening or adjusting the colors...
And like climbinghiker said, it's a really good shot. I'm gonna have to start using slide film...
|
|
|
|
|
jeffers_mz
May 28, 2003, 9:59 PM
Post #15 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 357
|
I'm using a new monitor, 17", sRGB, 6500K, Gamma 2.2 and really can't pick it out as posted here. Punching up the brightness using Photoshop, about 25 units, makes it stand out clearly.
I would probably have gone for the waterline, since using a natural feature tends to be less obvious. Also, once the mask is overlaid, Photoshop's "Feather" feature allows you to ease into the manipulation, rather than having it take place on a discrete line of pixels. After adjusting the top half of the image, I'd have then used the "Inverse" tool on the mask options and worked the lower area of the image as well.
Finally, since the concept of calibrating a monitor never even occurs to most comptuer users, and they just twist brightness and contrast to full maximum, the last thing you should do before saving the modified image (always with a different name, NEVER modify the raw data file) is punch up the brightness about 40 or even 50 points to check for just this issue, then cancel the action before the save.
|
|
|
|
|
jerrygarcia
May 28, 2003, 10:19 PM
Post #16 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 837
|
In reply to: On my flat panel monitor the line is quite obvious. Curt
same
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
May 28, 2003, 10:37 PM
Post #17 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*the last thing you should do before saving the modified image (always with a different name, NEVER modify the raw data file) is punch up the brightness about 40 or even 50 points to check for just this issue, then cancel the action before the save.*
I can't modify the raw data, it's on a Kodak PhotoCD-ROM, as in read only. And if I boost the brightness 40 or 50%, it is totally washed out, are you saying I should upload the shots this way to compensate for people with uncalibrated monitors?
|
|
|
|
|
geckoee
May 28, 2003, 11:01 PM
Post #18 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 11, 2003
Posts: 99
|
yeah, make sure to check the image with the brightness and contrast way up. Most computer users turn those two knobs to the max so text and web stuff is more legible. (especially on cheaper monitors that don't have the gamma range. :( ) I usually lay a filter on top of the photo with the contrast and brightness way up so I can check for editing flaws. If you tweak the knobs around a little small flaws will leap right out at you and you can fix them. Before I flatten and save the image I just disable the filter layer.
PS I know the photos I up-loaded to RC suck. I'll up load some I like eventually. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
extrememountaineer
May 28, 2003, 11:02 PM
Post #19 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 377
|
Okay, after reading the responses here, I cranked up the brightness on my monitor from 63 to 100 and I can see it now. There is a naturally occurring sharp black line that basically follows the selection line.
Kalcario said...In reply to: One of the first things the user manual that comes with Photoshop tells you to do after you install the program is calibrate your monitor using the Gamma control panel that comes with the program, did you do that? You must not be the only one who doesn't see the mask artifact, or whatever it is, because people are giving that shot some pretty high marks...either that or you're being patronized by your buds...
I did not receive a manual...Photoshop Elements came with my scanner software. Obviously, sir, it looked fine on my monitor and many others' as well, like I said I never claimed to be a digital expert. You kind of have a condescending attitude in your criticism...Criticize the shot, point out the mask line, whatever, but keep your "patronized by your buds" remarks to yourself. I guess everybody that voted it high is just some dumbass.
In reply to: If that was the shadow line then the trees would be in the sun.
You are wrong, the shadow line I am speaking of is something behind the trees, hillside, boulders, etc. I just didn't do a good job of matching the selection line.
|
|
|
|
|
extrememountaineer
May 28, 2003, 11:19 PM
Post #20 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 377
|
Wouldn't let me delete this post.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
May 28, 2003, 11:21 PM
Post #21 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
* I did not receive a manual...Photoshop Elements came with my scanner software. Obviously, sir, it looked fine on my monitor and many others' as well, like I said I never claimed to be a digital expert. You kind of have a condescending attitude in your criticism...Criticize the shot, point out the mask line, whatever, but keep your "patronized by your buds" remarks to yourself. I guess everybody that voted it high is just some dumbass. *
At the risk of sounding patronizing myself, you should get the real deal, Photoshop 7.0, and get rid of Elements, you are obviously interested and talented enough to learn and use it, and yup, most people out there who are voting on our shots don't have properly calibrated monitors, as your high marks prove. Sad but true.
|
|
|
|
|
k9rocko
May 28, 2003, 11:43 PM
Post #22 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2002
Posts: 195
|
Your digital image has a line...... a really bad one. My monitor is Adobe Gamma tuned. I would not say it is a selection line, without seeing a higer resolution version of said photo..... but that is what the first look would lead someone to suspect.
I am sure the photograph is beautiful on slide, and quite possibly this isn't even slightly your fault. I have noticed the film -> digital transition is very equipment/software dependent. If you don't have big money gear, you don't get big money results.
I have been recently impressed with the newer digital SLR cameras with the look and feel of a "real camera." I have taken some shots that really impressed me. I have decided to get one, but lack the 1,100.00 for the camera body. It will take all my current optics, so that is a saver!!
Otherwise, your photo is beautiful..... and you might take another crack at scanning it. I suggest a Inkleys / or Ritz photo shop. They seem to still have an 'eye' for color, where the walgreens and wal marts have completely lost it.....
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
May 29, 2003, 1:14 AM
Post #23 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
I see the line, but only on a really close look after seeing the post where it was pointed out. It looks to me like the bottom is slightly lighter than the top. I myself would fix it by dumping the color of the top part into the bottom section with a slight tolerance factor, so it gives it the same color up to the edges of that black part where it goes to other colors. Hope you understood that, and good luck. :)
|
|
|
|
|
jeffers_mz
May 29, 2003, 10:21 AM
Post #24 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 357
|
In reply to: *the last thing you should do before saving the modified image (always with a different name, NEVER modify the raw data file) is punch up the brightness about 40 or even 50 points to check for just this issue, then cancel the action before the save.* I can't modify the raw data, it's on a Kodak PhotoCD-ROM, as in read only. And if I boost the brightness 40 or 50%, it is totally washed out, are you saying I should upload the shots this way to compensate for people with uncalibrated monitors?
No, don't save it with the brightness turned up until the image washes out. Increase the brightness to see if anything ugly jumps out at you, then cancel the increase in brightness before saving the file.
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Jun 15, 2003, 3:23 PM
Post #25 of 25
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
what is a Gamma blahblahblah??? :shock:
And I just changed my screen's parameters, and the pictures become so awful suddenly. I never thought it could change so much the qualities of a picture... Some pictures which appeared very nice can become just uninteresting... :?
|
|
|
|
|
|
