Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I fully understand how to get the effects that I do want.
The tutorial is probably something that helps you, and that is fine. It has nothing to do with the image that I edited.
It surely does, but the denial is getting in the way. Anyway, go ahead and contribute to this thread as it was meant to be. Because I do not plan on going around in circles with you.
Although this thread seems interesting and informative to some; I know for a fact; Some people new to photography can't even begin to grasp what the heck is going on here.
Photography is all about creating an image using a camera.
this thread is all about "finger painting" 101
If you cannot create an image that looks great; straight out of the camera
YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG!!
I just had to put my 2 cents in - due to the many messages I have just received.
I created this thread and I must admit...I will have to revisit every post several times, over a period of time, to understand everything everyone is mentioning.
Hopefully it won't take me 'too' long before it all comes together...but at the same time I'm in now rush...
My whole point is simply this; It is a very simple process to import a photograph out of the camera; and without any post processing let the photograph stand for itself. That is my whole point.
I provided an example to simply display that even a 4 mega pixel camera that is a cheap-o point & shoot can create a stunning image. No post processing. Other than resize.
Yes It can be done easily... that's my whole point in a nutshell. If that photo can't stand on its own merits. NO amount of post processing will make it happen. Now I know some can take this statement to the extreme and provide all types of examples why I am wrong!
People new to photography think... Oh gee.. I have to process in RAW mode only to be able to create a photograph that is great! And I will take the time to apologize to others; and freely admit; Yes your 100% correct Floyd - You are a much better photographer than I will ever be. That is plain pure and simple -But photography is not about who is better.. It is all about producing a photograph.
I have a lot to learn Floyd I admit that. I read what you are saying .. and I have never ever read anyone post so articulately and eloguently - but the plain simple truth is.. I can't understand you one bit.
Created by a 14 year old boy of his 5 year old sister using a 4 megapixel point & shoot!
Straight out of the camera as a *.jpg no post processing other than resize!!
Really? So how did the frame with the drop shadow and rounded corners get on there? Anything else you're forgetting?
Of course it's impossible to tell exactly what we're looking at because you've stripped the EXIF information off your image. Note that Floyd's images contain full EXIF information so one can verify and learn from his settings. All the images I post contain EXIF as do many of the better photographers on this site.
If your goal of posting images here is to teach, then LEAVE THE EXIF INFO ON YOUR IMAGES. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.
what is the deal, really? Are you two ancient immortal adversaries destined to battle throughout time like in Highlander, and you've now decided that here is the place for your final fight to the death? cool.
For those wondering exactly what this horrible pixelated, mutilated, aberration I have that David Eves is so envious of... This image has been on the home page of my website for eight years now:
It does get a lot of very favorable comments, because it certainly is unusual looking! That was taken on June 21st, looking almost directly north over the Arctic Ocean at about 1:30 AM, when the sun is at its lowest point during the day.
The look of that image is a function almost entirely of the specific camera that took it. And every year since then I've thought about taking basically the same picture again with every camera I can round up. Unfortunately, I've either been asleep or otherwise occupied at the right time, just plain forgotten about it... or, in every case where I've remembered and been ready there has been no picture because of cloud cover. Some day I'll be ready and do it again.
Note that there is no EXIF data attached to that image. It wasn't stripped though, it just never existed! It was taken with a Sony FD91 point and shoot, and recorded on a floppy disk. The original size was 1024x768, or less than 1 megapixel. Whatever, claiming it is "pixelated" is just crass fabrication... it isn't. But it is pretty noisy, and that isn't exactly surprising considering the P&S camera used was released by Sony in 1999.
The bottom line is that it is perhaps the most interesting shot of the sun at it's lowest on June 21st over the Arctic Ocean that I've ever seen. It will stay on the homepage of my web site until I get lucky enough to produce a more interesting one.
When did this topic turn into a website competition? I can't believe you actually went to such lengths to put this compilation together. I'll say it again - your unrelenting vilification of Floyd is unprofessional and petty. I hope that when you say you are done with it, you are genuinely done - for your own sake, if no one else's!
Ah, it may just be a difference in monitors. I can only barely see them on my monitor in the original picture, and not at all in the edited one. Also, at the moment my monitor is placed pretty low in relation to my eye level. If I stoop down so that the monitor is directly at eye level, I can't see the trees either. Now I'm starting to wonder if I need to raise up my monitor and go through a bunch of pictures I've already edited!
If you can see the outline of the trees, your monitor is not adjusted well.
Given that you say you are looking "down" at it, I'm unsure of that too. Looking down is okay, as long as the screen is perpendicular to your view. If is perfectly vertical then your eyes should be perfectly even with the center of the screen. If you eyes are higher than that the screen should have the top tilted back to make it all square with your gaze.
One of the most common adjustment problems with monitors is setting the brightness too high, and that would also allow you to see the shadows of those trees in that image. I downloaded the file, and the sky above the tree line has a value of 2 (on a scale of 0 to 255). The trees have a value of 9.
Below is the contrast/brightness calibration chart that I have on my web page. Note that the steps are not equally spaced.
The darkest 3 steps, but not more than 5, should probably all be indistinguishable. The same is true of the brightest steps. Use the "Brightness" control to adjust how many of the dark steps are distinct, and the "Contrast" control to change the bright steps. The two controls will interact, so going back and forth is probably necessary. With a good monitor that has been calibrated to sRGB specs, it will be possible to just see the difference between the third and forth black steps, while between the 3rd and 4th brigthest steps it is pretty distinct. A miss adjusted monitor will be uneven. A poor monitor might not be able to distinguish between any of the first 6 steps on either end when adjusted for best balance.
If you can see the outline of the trees, your monitor is not adjusted well.
Given that you say you are looking "down" at it, I'm unsure of that too. Looking down is okay, as long as the screen is perpendicular to your view. If is perfectly vertical then your eyes should be perfectly even with the center of the screen. If you eyes are higher than that the screen should have the top tilted back to make it all square with your gaze.
One of the most common adjustment problems with monitors is setting the brightness too high, and that would also allow you to see the shadows of those trees in that image. I downloaded the file, and the sky above the tree line has a value of 2 (on a scale of 0 to 255). The trees have a value of 9.
Below is the contrast/brightness calibration chart that I have on my web page. Note that the steps are not equally spaced.
The darkest 3 steps, but not more than 5, should probably all be indistinguishable. The same is true of the brightest steps. Use the "Brightness" control to adjust how many of the dark steps are distinct, and the "Contrast" control to change the bright steps. The two controls will interact, so going back and forth is probably necessary. With a good monitor that has been calibrated to sRGB specs, it will be possible to just see the difference between the third and forth black steps, while between the 3rd and 4th brigthest steps it is pretty distinct. A miss adjusted monitor will be uneven. A poor monitor might not be able to distinguish between any of the first 6 steps on either end when adjusted for best balance.
Floyd, thanks for the instruction. My monitor does appear to need some tweaking, though the angle of it seems to be the biggest problem. I just moved into my place not too long ago, and I don't have a proper desk yet. So my monitor, keyboard, and mouse are just resting on top of some large boxes at the moment, and the monitor is definitely too low. When I stoop down to view the monitor straight on, the trees are practically indistinguishable (I can still see them ever so faintly if I really look for them.) I'll try to position it better and use the chart you provided to try to adjust it properly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
