Streets The Air at Dusk

The Air at Dusk · 08:58 PM

twitch · 05-23-2011, 09:49 PM

I really like it, but if there was ever a good photo that could be made fantastic through PP, this one is it.

outsider · 05-23-2011, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by twitch

I really like it, but if there was ever a good photo that could be made fantastic through PP, this one is it.

Really!? Maybe you could share some of your expertise?

twitch · 05-24-2011, 01:18 AM

I'm no expert that's for sure, don't even own photoshop, but here's what a couple of minutes in Aperture will do

CWyatt · 05-24-2011, 01:51 AM

I don't do these, but I thought I'd muck around briefly to try i out and ended up with this in a couple of minutes.

I'd change a few things from this.

But of course it depends on what you want from the photo. Some people don't want the glam photo look.

outsider · 05-24-2011, 07:15 AM

Twitch, I was half joking, although I do appreciate your input. It's always fun to see what other peoples opinions are. I do see your point however, despite you not being an expert and you not owning photoshop. I have photoshop and I am bit of a minimalist. I usually do a pinch of sharpening. Just enough that one may probably not tell if they were pixel peeping. I dash of contrast and either slight saturation or vibrance. I apply all cautiously, especially contrast and vibrance, since they can have a drastically negative effect, depending on the respective photo. I processed this picture as minimally as possible, while maintaining the realistic look of everything. I don't like pushing color saturation (yes there's many names for this), because you lose detail, contrast and highlights at a certain thresholds. Although the girl in the photo may evoke a "glamour" look to some people, my intention was to capture her as close to reality as possible, color, shadow, highlights, imperfections. The raw file, untouched in photoshop was pretty close and I didn't have to do much in PP, to get it just right. To my taste, that is. Of course, every monitor displays color, contrast and detail differently, so what one see's at home may be completely different than what he sees at his cousins house, even with similar settings. I tend to (but not always) keep things minimal so that thing will never look overdone, or blown out.

builttospill · 05-24-2011, 09:12 AM

While twitch's quick revision shows a dramatic change from your posted shot, which some may or may not like, he still has a good point. I prefer twitch's version. It may not be natural, but the photo is much more pleasing and easier to look at.

While the original is a nice photo, my eyes keep straying to the shiny spot on the subject's forehead. The light is too harsh and it's a distraction and I'd suggest removing it, even if you keep the rest of the photo more natural, to really make the photo great as suggested.

outsider · 05-24-2011, 11:48 AM

Eh. Everybody's got a advice. We all have our reasons for allowing a photo to look a certain way. I like it when I get home and see that the image looks just the way it was, shiny forehead, pits, zits and imperfections, with brilliant exposure. Makes my job easier. Maybe I'll post this in photo critique instead next time.

MacRider71 · 05-29-2011, 01:55 AM

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but how did you get a ISO of 100 when the K-x cannot go any lower than 200?

outsider · 05-29-2011, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by MacRider71

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but how did you get a ISO of 100 when the K-x cannot go any lower than 200?

No such thing as a stupid question. And that is certainly not one. The k-x is expandable from 100 to I believe 12,000 or something in that range. You have to go into the menu and change the ISO settings to "expand range". This will give you the option of setting the ISO to 100. It's a really nice feature, much better than many Nikons, which, rather than using an actual ISO number at lower ranges, they instead mimic a lower ISO, which introduces more noise to the picture. The D90 is like this

The K-5 can be set as low as ISO 80!

outsider · 05-29-2011, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by MacRider71

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but how did you get a ISO of 100 when the K-x cannot go any lower than 200?

No such thing as a stupid question. And that is certainly not one. The k-x is expandable from 100 to I believe 12,000 or something in that range. You have to go into the menu and change the ISO settings to "expand range". This will give you the option of setting the ISO to 100. It's a really nice feature, much better than many Nikons, which, rather than using an actual ISO number at lower ranges, they instead mimic a lower ISO, which introduces more noise to the picture. The D90 is like this

The K-5 can be set as low as ISO 80!

MacRider71 · 05-29-2011, 02:24 AM

Thankyou outsider for reply. I have just played around with the K-x in the menu settings and i cannot for the life of me pinpoint the iso settings... any direction would be helpful and appreciated

outsider · 05-29-2011, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by MacRider71

Thankyou outsider for reply. I have just played around with the K-x in the menu settings and i cannot for the life of me pinpoint the iso settings... any direction would be helpful and appreciated

No problem. Press "Menu", then the arrow left pad (9 times I believe), then select "Expanded Sensitivity", then select "On". This will allow the ISO setting to be set from 100-12,800

outsider · 05-29-2011, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by MacRider71

Thankyou outsider for reply. I have just played around with the K-x in the menu settings and i cannot for the life of me pinpoint the iso settings... any direction would be helpful and appreciated

Sorry, arrow pad right 9 times.

MacRider71 · 05-29-2011, 03:05 AM

Many thanks. All sorted!

outsider
	View full profile
	Contact via private message
	Find other posts by outsider
	Find threads started by outsider
	Find threads in which outsider has posted

05-24-2011, 01:51 AM	#5
CWyatt Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,291	I don't do these, but I thought I'd muck around briefly to try i out and ended up with this in a couple of minutes. I'd change a few things from this. But of course it depends on what you want from the photo. Some people don't want the glam photo look. Last edited by CWyatt; 03-27-2013 at 01:26 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Architecture Dusk	ICTUS TACTUS	Post Your Photos!	8	01-13-2011 04:15 PM
Landscape dusk	tigershiok	Post Your Photos!	2	09-15-2010 12:27 AM
Landscape Dusk	twitch	Post Your Photos!	2	04-14-2010 07:29 PM
Trees at dusk	JMR	Post Your Photos!	15	06-22-2009 04:36 PM
Argentinian Air Force Air Show	Andres	Post Your Photos!	5	05-08-2009 06:44 PM

05-23-2011, 09:49 PM	#2
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	I really like it, but if there was ever a good photo that could be made fantastic through PP, this one is it.

05-23-2011, 10:08 PM	#3
outsider Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 416 Original Poster	Originally posted by twitch I really like it, but if there was ever a good photo that could be made fantastic through PP, this one is it. Really!? Maybe you could share some of your expertise?

05-24-2011, 01:18 AM	#4
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	I'm no expert that's for sure, don't even own photoshop, but here's what a couple of minutes in Aperture will do

05-24-2011, 07:15 AM	#6
outsider Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 416 Original Poster	Twitch, I was half joking, although I do appreciate your input. It's always fun to see what other peoples opinions are. I do see your point however, despite you not being an expert and you not owning photoshop. I have photoshop and I am bit of a minimalist. I usually do a pinch of sharpening. Just enough that one may probably not tell if they were pixel peeping. I dash of contrast and either slight saturation or vibrance. I apply all cautiously, especially contrast and vibrance, since they can have a drastically negative effect, depending on the respective photo. I processed this picture as minimally as possible, while maintaining the realistic look of everything. I don't like pushing color saturation (yes there's many names for this), because you lose detail, contrast and highlights at a certain thresholds. Although the girl in the photo may evoke a "glamour" look to some people, my intention was to capture her as close to reality as possible, color, shadow, highlights, imperfections. The raw file, untouched in photoshop was pretty close and I didn't have to do much in PP, to get it just right. To my taste, that is. Of course, every monitor displays color, contrast and detail differently, so what one see's at home may be completely different than what he sees at his cousins house, even with similar settings. I tend to (but not always) keep things minimal so that thing will never look overdone, or blown out.

05-24-2011, 09:12 AM	#7
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	While twitch's quick revision shows a dramatic change from your posted shot, which some may or may not like, he still has a good point. I prefer twitch's version. It may not be natural, but the photo is much more pleasing and easier to look at. While the original is a nice photo, my eyes keep straying to the shiny spot on the subject's forehead. The light is too harsh and it's a distraction and I'd suggest removing it, even if you keep the rest of the photo more natural, to really make the photo great as suggested.

05-24-2011, 11:48 AM	#8
outsider Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 416 Original Poster	Eh. Everybody's got a advice. We all have our reasons for allowing a photo to look a certain way. I like it when I get home and see that the image looks just the way it was, shiny forehead, pits, zits and imperfections, with brilliant exposure. Makes my job easier. Maybe I'll post this in photo critique instead next time.

05-29-2011, 01:55 AM	#9
MacRider71 New Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Swansea, NSW, Australia Posts: 21	Sorry if this is a stupid question, but how did you get a ISO of 100 when the K-x cannot go any lower than 200?

05-29-2011, 02:00 AM	#10
outsider Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 416 Original Poster	Originally posted by MacRider71 Sorry if this is a stupid question, but how did you get a ISO of 100 when the K-x cannot go any lower than 200? No such thing as a stupid question. And that is certainly not one. The k-x is expandable from 100 to I believe 12,000 or something in that range. You have to go into the menu and change the ISO settings to "expand range". This will give you the option of setting the ISO to 100. It's a really nice feature, much better than many Nikons, which, rather than using an actual ISO number at lower ranges, they instead mimic a lower ISO, which introduces more noise to the picture. The D90 is like this The K-5 can be set as low as ISO 80!

05-29-2011, 02:01 AM	#11
outsider Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 416 Original Poster	Originally posted by MacRider71 Sorry if this is a stupid question, but how did you get a ISO of 100 when the K-x cannot go any lower than 200? No such thing as a stupid question. And that is certainly not one. The k-x is expandable from 100 to I believe 12,000 or something in that range. You have to go into the menu and change the ISO settings to "expand range". This will give you the option of setting the ISO to 100. It's a really nice feature, much better than many Nikons, which, rather than using an actual ISO number at lower ranges, they instead mimic a lower ISO, which introduces more noise to the picture. The D90 is like this The K-5 can be set as low as ISO 80!

05-29-2011, 02:24 AM	#12
MacRider71 New Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Swansea, NSW, Australia Posts: 21	Thankyou outsider for reply. I have just played around with the K-x in the menu settings and i cannot for the life of me pinpoint the iso settings... any direction would be helpful and appreciated

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-29-2011, 02:52 AM	#13
outsider Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 416 Original Poster	Originally posted by MacRider71 Thankyou outsider for reply. I have just played around with the K-x in the menu settings and i cannot for the life of me pinpoint the iso settings... any direction would be helpful and appreciated No problem. Press "Menu", then the arrow left pad (9 times I believe), then select "Expanded Sensitivity", then select "On". This will allow the ISO setting to be set from 100-12,800

05-29-2011, 02:52 AM	#14
outsider Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 416 Original Poster	Originally posted by MacRider71 Thankyou outsider for reply. I have just played around with the K-x in the menu settings and i cannot for the life of me pinpoint the iso settings... any direction would be helpful and appreciated Sorry, arrow pad right 9 times.

05-29-2011, 03:05 AM	#15
MacRider71 New Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Swansea, NSW, Australia Posts: 21	Many thanks. All sorted!