It's About Bloody Time!

[Kirislin]

Well it's only taken me almost 2 years but I am finally trying to utilse and learn some of the facilities on this damn computer. Using DPP, the program that comes with the camera my attempt to doctor a pic, the original had an ugly barbeque and a soccer ball in the background.

Not the same pic but is shows the rubbish I removed.

and I also had a little go with Photobucket. Tell me if I've been too heavy handed, first the original,

then the edited, I think his eyes look a bit stary and his white stripe might be a bit too white in this one but I would appreciate some more experienced opinions please.

I love the way PS allows you to retrieve detail from shadowy areas though.

Oh, and please note my siggy, I wont have a hissy fit if you edit my photos.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Kirislin

[TerraNik]

For the first, I don't really have anything to say other than I can't tell that you've photoshopped bits out!

Personally I really like what you've done with the second shot. You've really brought out the eyes which is to me, the main focus of the photo. The non-edited version is dull and drab and underexposed.

[kja]

Kudos to you on cloning. I hate it so much I will go to enormous lengths not to do it Looks like you did a good job!

I think the first two are a bit flat and the doggies are underexposed, so I'd head into Lightroom and start playing until I had the balance I wanted and a little zip - this is season to taste, but here's a ten second fiddle: brightness (+64) & contrast (+57) & blacks to +5

I, too, like the second edit more than the original and for the same reasons as TerraNick

Edited January 12, 2010 by kja

[Kirislin]

Kudos to you on cloning. I hate it so much I will go to enormous lengths not to do it Looks like you did a good job!

I think the first two are a bit flat and the doggies are underexposed, so I'd head into Lightroom and start playing until I had the balance I wanted and a little zip - this is season to taste, but here's a ten second fiddle: brightness (+64) & contrast (+57) & blacks to +5

I, too, like the second edit more than the original and for the same reasons as TerraNick

thankyou both! I haven't got lightroom, and I dont know my way around Photo shop yet, I assume you can do the same things on it? yes? all I have to do is find it. I like the contrasty effect you've done with it kja.

[kja]

Are you shooting RAW? If so, you're likely bringing your images in to Photoshop with Bridge and you can do the same things in there.

If not, in Photoshop, play with your brightness/contrast setting and then curves under the Image -> Adjustment menu. Tbh I don't use Photoshop much because a) many edits are destructive, b) Lightroom is so freakin much easier and c) Lightroom is SO freakin much easier and faster

There's a free Beta version - which I'm told is really good - of Lightroom at www.adobe.com and it's valid until at least the end of April so now's an awesome time to download it and get a few months play time before you have to decide that you can't live without it!

Oh and btw - if most of your images are turning out this underexposed, you need to look at your settings and start getting closer when you shoot: check your shutter speed (decrease it for more light, but watch it's too slow to capture the moment), open your aperture (you have more room for error when your subject is farther away) and try different ISOs (not sure what camera you have so you'll have to experiment to see how high you can go before you get noise you don't like).

Edited January 12, 2010 by kja

[persephone]

Excellent, Kirislin!

LOVE that second shot- those eyes!

[tlc]

I think you have done a great job on both shots!! I cannot tell you ahve taken anything out of the first shot. I hate cloning, Im hopeless at it!! So well done!

I like the second shot too, not to over done just nice!!

[Linda K]

love kjas edit of the first shot, but you did a great job cloning, another thing I like to use is layers and applying a soft light layer, and masking back any ares you don't want, which applies a nice bit of oomph. The only minor cc is I don't like the tail chop in the first, (but that is very minor), love the great backlight you have captured here. In the second shot, love the edit, the only thing I would do is you will notice that on the left there is now a white spot and lighter area on the rug where because it is a bit more raised, it has caught a bit more light, and in the edit this is even more lightened. As the eye is attracted automatically to lighter areas in a photo, and you don't want the eye getting dragged off to the side, I would just burn that spot in, so it is darkened back the same as the rest of the rug, leaving the focus on your dogs beautiful eyes. I wouldn't worry about the white stripe, a value reading shows it is only 223 at the brightest, so certainly is not blown at all, the only spot that I can see that reads 255 (which means will just print as plain white, is the eye catchlight on the rhs, so maybe you might need to do something there

[Ashanali]

Slightly off topic to kja - it might be my monitor that needs to be recalibrated but your edits look REALLY contrasty at this end. Just thought I'd mention it incase it isn't my monitor and you may want to check the calibration on yours just to double check. (I'll be recalibrating tomorrow so it likely is me. )

[kja]

Very well could be my quickie edit, too. I like to take the contrast a little hard for show and tell - it's why I say season to taste Here's contrast pulled back to +30 and to 0

Some people like more, some like less. Experiment and see what works for you. I find that consumer labs need the contrast a little more than looks "right" or they print a little flat sometimes.

Did this on the lappie and it's calibrated but quirky LOL

Edited January 13, 2010 by kja