[Shelly]

Trying to find the best balance with light. Is this too dark to be a good shot? have resized the photo.

---

Last edited by Shelly; 09-04-2020 at 07:40 AM.

[Heebie]

I don't think it's too dark.

[Shelly]

I don't think it's too dark.

Thanks Heebie appreciate your response.

[SSGGeezer]

I think it is fine, light level-wise. Any brighter and the small lighted area might appear blown out. The detail and colors are very nice. I like it a lot, and the more I look, the more I like it.

---

Last edited by SSGGeezer; 05-26-2020 at 05:58 PM. Reason: Spelling

[JensE]

For screen use it is perfect. Any brighter and the bright parts of the petal would lose color. For printing, it would likely need some tone mapping/local editing.

[Parallax]

To me there's a very appealing drama to it that would be lost if it were lighter.

[Shelly]

I think it is fine, light level-wise. Any brighter and the small lighted area might appear blown out. There detail and colors are very nice. I like it a lot, and the more I look, the more I like it.

SGGeezer, I appreciate your comments, many thanks. makes me happy.

---------- Post added 26-05-20 at 10:43 ----------

For screen use it is perfect. Any brighter and the bright parts of the petal would lose color. For printing, it would likely need some tone mapping/local editing.

Thanks JensE. I did edit this photo ever so slightly. What do you mean by tone mapping/local editing. Something else I need to know..........

---------- Post added 26-05-20 at 10:46 ----------

To me there's a very appealing drama to it that would be lost if it were lighter.

Hi Parallax. I get the drama, thought so too when i toned down the light a bit. I actually like this photo quite a lot even if I say so myself.Lol

[JensE]

What do you mean by tone mapping/local editing. Something else I need to know......

Editing pictures of scenes with a high contrast, especially with saturated colors, for printing requires some "artistic" trade-offs. Prints can't reproduce high contrasts as well as modern screens can: prints have about 1:100, screens about 1:1000 contrast ratios and a sunlit scene with some deep shadows up to 1:100000 in reality (yours above likely had less). So you have to make dark, saturated parts brighter, tame highlights - all without losing critical local contrast and the right relations of tones and colors within the picture and of course without creating unwanted artifacts. Something that needs to be done selectively and cannot be achieved by global contrast and brightness adjustments. There are algorithms which automate some of it, but often it means selecting and adjusting parts of the image manually and afterwards blending it in.

[Shelly]

Editing pictures of scenes with a high contrast, especially with saturated colors, for printing requires some "artistic" trade-offs. Prints can't reproduce high contrasts as well as modern screens can: prints have about 1:100, screens about 1:1000 contrast ratios and a sunlit scene with some deep shadows up to 1:100000 in reality (yours above likely had less). So you have to make dark, saturated parts brighter, tame highlights - all without losing critical local contrast and the right relations of tones and colors within the picture and of course without creating unwanted artifacts. Something that needs to be done selectively and cannot be achieved by global contrast and brightness adjustments. There are algorithms which automate some of it, but often it means selecting and adjusting parts of the image manually and afterwards blending it in.

Thank you for the info JensE. Now i assume that to do this correctly I need the proper equipment / photo editing stuff. Hopefully tomorrow I'll win the jackpot. Lol However, if I send this photo to a print shop to enlarge - it wont come back looking good........................pity.

Again many thanks.

[JensE]

Now i assume that to do this correctly I need the proper equipment / photo editing stuff. Hopefully tomorrow I'll win the jackpot.

What you need is a halfway decent monitor/display and a computer of sorts. I often edit on our ~9y old notebook - admittedly top-of-the-line ThinkPad X-Series back then. I'm using free software - not primarily because of the price, but because it fits my needs best.

[Shelly]

What you need is a halfway decent monitor/display and a computer of sorts. I often edit on our ~9y old notebook - admittedly top-of-the-line ThinkPad X-Series back then. I'm using free software - not primarily because of the price, but because it fits my needs best.

Thanks JensE. What free software are you using? perhaps that'll help.


Must admit my laptop is pretty old give or take 15 yrs. I also use a free software that comes with Windows7, can't afford anything else. My camera is also old +- 14 yrs. So all in all I should expect never to achieve the standards I want with what i got.

[JensE]

So all in all I should expect never to achieve the standards I want with what i got.

Your picture challenges that statement - most times, as in my case, it's definitely not the equipment, which sets the limits.

I'm using Rawtherapee a lot - but be prepared for a steep learning curve. New versions don't come for 32bit Windows versions anymore, but I have used RawTherapee - RawTherapee v4.2 for a long time.

Alternatively, there are occasional free offerings from commercial software vendors - typically their previous, but they do come with free perpetual licenses. I e.g. occasionally use DXO's software in some version that supports the K-5, but not newer models. A lot of those offers are reported here in the forum, so keep your eyes open. I'm not sure how you got your camera, but the Pentax software, which comes with it, can deliver very good results too and you can start from a very similar rendering as the in-camera JPG. Usability isn't great though.

[Shelly]

Your picture challenges that statement - most times, as in my case, it's definitely not the equipment, which sets the limits.

I'm using Rawtherapee a lot - but be prepared for a steep learning curve. New versions don't come for 32bit Windows versions anymore, but I have used RawTherapee - RawTherapee v4.2 for a long time.

Alternatively, there are occasional free offerings from commercial software vendors - typically their previous, but they do come with free perpetual licenses. I e.g. occasionally use DXO's software in some version that supports the K-5, but not newer models. A lot of those offers are reported here in the forum, so keep your eyes open. I'm not sure how you got your camera, but the Pentax software, which comes with it, can deliver very good results too and you can start from a very similar rendering as the in-camera JPG. Usability isn't great though.

Thanks JensE. Will definitely look around AND try out the Pentax software. Much appreciated.