 |
||||||||
|
 |
|
|||||||
| Post your photos! Share your photos here in order to receive comments as well as critique from other users! |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
01-18-2007, 07:08 PM
|
#1 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SW washington
Gallery Photos:
0
Posts: 121
|
Photoshopped Version 2.0 Not underexposed
 What do you think? |
|
|
|
01-18-2007, 07:13 PM
|
#2 |
|
Pentaxian
|
WAAAAAY better then the other version. I little blown out in the bottom portion of snow but I still like it. Matter of fact crop some of that bottom off and you have a better , better version.
__________________
____________________________________ Pat B - I have nothing interesting to include in my signature 
|
|
|
|
|
01-18-2007, 07:21 PM
|
#3 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SW washington
Gallery Photos:
0
Posts: 121
|
Originally Posted by vievetrick
The only bad part is that a friend photoshopped it for me, and i dont know what he did. 
 |
|
|
|
|
01-18-2007, 10:13 PM
|
#4 |
|
Pentaxian
|
If I recall the previous shot, he probably just brought in the right hand levels to brighten the whole thing.
__________________
Clarence ------------------------- Life give us filters through which we see everything. I dreamt that the world was full of things to photograph...and I couldn't capture them all. |
|
|
|
|
01-19-2007, 10:11 AM
|
#5 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SW washington
Gallery Photos:
0
Posts: 121
|
Originally Posted by clarenceclose
Looking at the shot at the larger size, it appears to have been sharpened as well. And there is something different about the trees, maybe a glow? Also, the taillights look more saturated. Either way, it looks more like it actually looked, which is what photographers usually strive for.
|
|
|
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:38 AM.