Post by: kimmer on December 20, 2011, 11:08:06 PM
This is the larger version (900x675):
http://spatulagraphics.com/images/sunset-1218_900.jpg
Smaller version of same photo (640x480):
http://spatulagraphics.com/images/sunset-1218640.jpg
Post by: jchuzi on December 21, 2011, 05:38:45 AM
Post by: chriskleeman on December 21, 2011, 07:38:31 AM
I think it's just a shade too dark, as the definition in the darker areas is a bit murky. I'm looking at it on my MBP, Matte Screen.
I'll go look in the big monitor on the DA and edit this post accordingly.
IAW Jon, I do very much like the composition!
Chris
Post by: gunug on December 21, 2011, 09:26:20 AM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on December 21, 2011, 09:38:18 AM
Of course, Gamma is only one variable and there is little you can do to control the calibration of the several billion monitors/OSs/eyeballs that might be viewing your images. Even if you ask Santa for an expensive calibration package for your Mac, you still won't be able to fix the problem once you let your image leave your monitor.
How's that for a 'lump of coal' for your Christmas stocking?! 
OTOH, you could buy a few thousand Pantone color samples and mail those to anyone who complains. Then tell them to calibrate their monitors to a few specific color samples...
Post by: kimmer on December 21, 2011, 12:32:51 PM
The scene itself was about as dark as the photo. The shots taken with "auto" setting didn't even show the definition that this photo does. I kept ramping up the ISO setting and was pleased with this one (even the darkness). This is the first time I've really been able to capture a sunset. I'm dangerous now.
QUOTE
On my system, I can see a reflection in the left center that looks like water.
Definitely water. The tide was incoming and it was roaring at times and it washed over the basalt rocks and some stayed behind. Probably great tidal pools in there, but I've never climbed down to check as it's a fairly dangerous spot.
Post by: jcarter on December 21, 2011, 06:28:49 PM
I love PS and always love to take a dark photo like this and have fun with it.
Apply some filters too, thats always even more fun.
Jane
Post by: Paddy on December 21, 2011, 11:07:03 PM
Here's the result - not a radical change. My monitor is calibrated (I have an Eye-One) and the gamma is 2.2.
http://paddyduncan.com/files/Kimsunset.jpg
The foreground detail seems more obvious in Lightroom than in the online version...weird.
Post by: kimmer on December 21, 2011, 11:58:05 PM
Post by: Highmac on December 22, 2011, 03:46:19 AM
QUOTE(kimmer @ Dec 22 2011, 05:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
^I'd like to see what you came up, but I get a "404" error.
Me too
Post by: Jack W on December 22, 2011, 06:47:03 AM
QUOTE(kimmer @ Dec 22 2011, 12:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
^I'd like to see what you came up, but I get a "404" error.
QUOTE(Highmac @ Dec 22 2011, 04:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(kimmer @ Dec 22 2011, 05:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
^I'd like to see what you came up, but I get a "404" error.
Me too
Ditto Ditto
Post by: jcarter on December 22, 2011, 07:19:08 AM
Jane
Post by: Paddy on December 22, 2011, 08:13:55 AM
http://paddyduncan.com/files/Kimsunset.jpg
I played around some more and this time lightened up the foreground even more to see what it looks like online.
http://paddyduncan.com/files/Kimsunset2.jpg
But that made the sky lose a lot of its punch, so then I edited it with my Color Efex Pro 3 filter set and applied a neutral density filter. It's probably a little overboard on the clouds now, but here it is:
http://paddyduncan.com/files/Kimsunset3.jpg
A little less messing with the sky: http://paddyduncan.com/files/Kimsunset4.jpg
Of course, with Color Efex Pro, you can do some pretty wild things too - but I'd better get on with the Christmas wrapping, instead of having fun in Lightroom!!
BTW - if your camera is capable of shooting in RAW, always use that! It gives you the most latitude for playing around afterwards. And also make sure your edits are done on TIFFs or PSDs, not JPEGs. JPEG is a "lossy" format - every time you save, more data is lost through the compression algorithm. TIFF and PSD are non-lossy.
And if you like to play around with your photos, I can't recommend Nik's Colo rEfex Pro software highly enough: http://www.niksoftware.com/colorefexpro/us...ro%2Fmain.shtml - I use it for all sorts of things, from B&W conversion to adjusting shots taken with flash. (Would make a very nice Christmas present for a desperate last minute shopper, as it's downloadable!!!)
Post by: jcarter on December 22, 2011, 08:21:57 AM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on December 22, 2011, 09:43:31 AM
Mainly, keep taking pictures!!! 
Post by: Paddy on December 22, 2011, 09:53:10 AM
QUOTE(jcarter @ Dec 22 2011, 10:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yes that is a neat photo, the second one is sort of like what I got with PS. I LOVE Lightroom, but havent bought it yet, just used the trial version.
Lightroom is probably my favorite application. I do 95% of my post-processing in it - a lot of photos never get opened in Photoshop these days! My Color Efex filters are for Lightroom - you can buy them for either app now.
Post by: jcarter on December 22, 2011, 10:49:31 AM
I just might buy it soon!
All I hear about it is great.
Jane
Post by: kimmer on December 22, 2011, 01:05:31 PM
QUOTE(Paddy @ Dec 22 2011, 06:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Argh. The "K" was upper case, not lower case! That's what you get for typing, rather than copying and pasting! Fixed the link. Here it is again,
http://paddyduncan.com/files/Kimsunset.jpg
http://paddyduncan.com/files/Kimsunset.jpg
Okay, don't bang your head, but to my eyes (and on my monitor), I don't see a lot of difference between my original photo and this one. I did see major changes in the other versions, so don't despair.
QUOTE
...cropped a little to get closer to rule of thirds (horizon should be around 1/3 or 2/3, not in the middle)...
Normally, yes, but sometimes I prefer to not use the "rule of thirds". Just a matter of artistic license.
QUOTE
BTW - if your camera is capable of shooting in RAW, always use that! It gives you the most latitude for playing around afterwards. And also make sure your edits are done on TIFFs or PSDs, not JPEGs. JPEG is a "lossy" format - every time you save, more data is lost through the compression algorithm. TIFF and PSD are non-lossy.
As far as I've dug around, RAW isn't a possibility with my camera. It's quite a camera for being a "point and click, fit in my purse", but it doesn't have all the bells and whistles. I always open my photo, save as a PSD, and then work/play.
QUOTE
And if you like to play around with your photos, I can't recommend Nik's Colo rEfex Pro software highly enough...
I own several Topaz filters, and really enjoy them.
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Dec 22 2011, 07:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The key thought here, however, is that what you see on your Mac may not be what anyone else sees on their Windows machine. Did you check your Gamma setting in the Display->Color->Calibrate (last screen)? Probably wouldn't hurt to use the Calibration functions even though they are pretty basic. At least they are free and you've already got them. And it will get the best on the monitor, environmental (lighting) conditions and eyes you have. It's kind of the bottom of the 'food chain.' Get that set and work your way up. Mainly, keep taking pictures!!!
Mainly, keep taking pictures!!! Wow! Didn't realize this gem was there; but now I'm afraid to run it until I figure it out. I don't want to brighten my screen to the point where I can no longer adjust it darker.
[attachment=2418:Screen_s...51.02_AM.png]
Because y'all have been so patient and helpful, here's another version:
http://spatulagraphics.com/images/sunset-1218-2702b.jpg
Thanks, thanks, thanks!
Post by: jcarter on December 22, 2011, 01:06:53 PM
Post by: dolphin on December 22, 2011, 01:19:48 PM
QUOTE
Normally, yes, but sometimes I prefer to not use the "rule of thirds". Just a matter of artistic license.
I understand your "artistic license", comment completely. However; my photography instructor would have handed us our heads, had we not used the "rule of thirds"
Post by: beacher on December 22, 2011, 01:38:49 PM
Post by: jchuzi on December 22, 2011, 04:12:45 PM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on December 22, 2011, 05:22:29 PM
But that pro might also be making more images while changing the manual settings to capture more of the dark areas and/or toning down the bright ones. I know these things not from experience, of course! Rule of thirds: If the first two attempts don't work, the third one won't either!
Post by: krissel on December 24, 2011, 01:51:00 AM
I didn't hear about the "rule of thirds" til years after I had been showing my art work successfully. Somehow my teachers never mentioned it.
Sometimes you just have to go on what looks or feels right, bag the math.
Post by: chriskleeman on December 24, 2011, 07:54:04 AM
I also like what you did to it too Paddy, but the lighter foreground in Kim's shot is just a bit more to my liking.
And Rule of Thirds? Well, in this case, IAW Kim, as the overall composition for this shot is really cool. Makes me want to be there!
Hey Jon, how about the circle of 5ths?
(Being a somewhat self-indulgent musician...) 
CK
Post by: jchuzi on December 24, 2011, 10:53:28 AM
QUOTE(chriskleeman @ Dec 24 2011, 08:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hey Jon, how about the circle of 5ths? (Being a somewhat self-indulgent musician...) CK
According to one story, Einstein (who played the violin), had played for Piatigorsky. He asked Piatigorsky, "Did I play well?" Piatigorsky replied, "You played relatively well." (Being a somewhat self-indulgent musician...) CK The rule of thirds is relatively good.