[slowpez]

Can anyone tell me how to brighten the center of this flower without destroying the photo? It looks OK on my monitor but is evidently too dark.
Thanks for suggestions.

---

Last edited by slowpez; 11-16-2010 at 03:34 PM.

[Adam]

Much better than the preview version! The colors are very nice here, and I like the overall composition. The only issue that sill lingers is that the contrast within the flower is still a bit flat. The colors look like they've been processed.

[slowpez]

Adam, what is the preview version? Did I post something I'm not aware of? Hate it when that happens.
The colors in this one have not been processed merely brightened somewhat. The sun was behind them, would that account for the processed look?
On my monitor, I can't see the flat contrast you are referring too. Could your monitor be off?
Thanks for the help, Susan

[Ash]

Our monitors our not off, Susan.
The flat contrast looks like some HDR effect or highlight/shadow treatment that brings down almost-clipped highlight detail and boosts almost-clipped shadow detail.
The result is a 'flatter' contrast, but this does not mean a 'flat' image.
The issue here is the harsh side/back lighting, which limits illumination of the centre of the flower. I'd go back to the original, tone down the HDR-effect (or whatever feature you used to get the tone-mapping results here) and just free-dodge the areas you want boosted - then play with curves to get the overall boost of contrast you're after.

[donallison13]

Adam: Photoshop works well. Opacity adjustment of 24% soft light should do it. Cheers. Don

[Ron Kruger]

Contrast and colors look great to me. Exposer is the best it could be in that lighting. Center of flower is dark because it is a darker color and the sun is slightly behind. Shoot it when the sun is low facing the flower or fill with flash if you want to retain the backlighting.

[slowpez]

I have no idea how I could be adding HDR effects, etc. when all I have been using is USM at 150 with a radius of 0.5 and threshold of 0. I had another photo where a comment was made about the sky being over-processed and I didn't do anything but sharpen it either. Could PSE 7 be the problem doing more than it should or could it be in-camera do you think?
Really do appreciate the help. I am paying attention. Susan

If I may, I will give this another go and do more PP and see what I can come up with and re-post the photo.

---

Last edited by slowpez; 11-12-2010 at 08:12 AM. Reason: Added note

[Ron Kruger]

It is always better to reshoot such a shoot with better light than to fix it in PP, Susan. The only problem I see with this shot is lighting, and while you can alter that in PP, every change you make not only changes what you want, but effects slightly or dramatically the rest of the image properties. Concentrate upon getting it right, or as close as possible, at the time of capture.
PSE 7 is a fine program, although I think ACDSee is better for Pentax images. If your monitor is not calibrated, that could be throwing you off as well.
Shadows are often a problem with flower pics. I use fill-flash almost all the time, especially with close up and macro. Google Ron Kruger and click on any link to Photoshelter. Then click on the "Tiny Wildflower Macros." Almost every image in that gallery was aided by flash.
Don't take ever citicizm to heart. Even though well intended, they are just opinions

[slowpez]

Thanks Ron. I'm not upset by the critiques given here although sometimes I think reading instead of hearing makes people think so but I am getting frustrated with my photos. I agree about getting it right the first time and I hate it when I think I did then find out I didn't and am unable to retake the shot.
So now it looks like I'm going to have to learn new skills. Here is a try at PP. I gave up on dodging as it made the center look too gray so I opted for a blending mode instead. Is this better do you think? This time I also used the high pass filter for sharpening instead of USM.
Thanks again everyone for your help.

After looking at this one, the center seems awfully dark to me. Big sigh here and a moan.

[slowpez]

Our monitors our not off, Susan.
The flat contrast looks like some HDR effect or highlight/shadow treatment that brings down almost-clipped highlight detail and boosts almost-clipped shadow detail.
The result is a 'flatter' contrast, but this does not mean a 'flat' image.
The issue here is the harsh side/back lighting, which limits illumination of the centre of the flower. I'd go back to the original, tone down the HDR-effect (or whatever feature you used to get the tone-mapping results here) and just free-dodge the areas you want boosted - then play with curves to get the overall boost of contrast you're after.

Ash, you don't know how badly I wanted it to be your monitors although I knew it couldn't have been. It sure would have done wonders for the ego though.

[Ash]

Sharpening does alter the natural feel of images, rendering them more artificial/plastic especially with the haloing it can produce when overdone. This is similar to the effect HDR overprocessing can achieve.

So your original edit isn't all that bad considering... but it has that element of 'too much' kind of like a pretty lady who put on just a little too much makeup...

So for the second edit, the image is now more 'natural' but it is soft (so a small pass of sharpening is warranted - suggest tone down the percentage to 90-100, radius to 0.7-1.0 and threshold up to between 2-5 and see how that works out).

The lighting issue comes out more clearly here - fixing that may need a freehand airbrush treatment of dodging over the centre of the flower, then perhaps a touch of highlight/shadow (without overdoing it) - but there will be only so much you can do to improve its overall look

[Ron Kruger]

This is all subjective, and in the end, you should shoot and process for yourself to get the look you want. I like your original image much better than the altered one. The first may be oversharpend a little, with some halos, but it is a good shot.

[slowpez]

Thanks a lot Ash and Ron. I have decided to let this dead dog lie. Ron, you are right about the bottom line, shoot for yourself and I have decided that I like the first one and, while it may not end up on the living room wall there is still plenty of wall left in the bathroom.

[donallison13]

If you're going to sharpen part of the image, my suggestion is that you use Kelby's Lab Sharpening Technique as it practically eliminates any possibility of artifacts and especially at lower sharpening levels.

[Rupert]

I'll be odd man out here........just an Old Squirrel Shooter passing by.......
I used Light Machine to brighten the center, and it did a nice job of it, and was very effective. However, I tend to like the original image you posted just like it is. Maybe not perfect, but it would certainly meet my standard....will it print and hang well in the appropriate location? Yes, no doubt about it! I like the Bold "in your face" effect of it.
Best Regards!