Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > overexposed K100D shot?

Reply
Thread Tools

overexposed K100D shot?

 
 
W Paul Mills
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

m II wrote:
>
>
> http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
>
>
> mike


Well, I does not look overexposed to me. But the lighting on this shot
seems rather bad. Either because of reflections off of colored objects
or mixed source lighting.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFa9Cku4tRirKTPYwRAugsAJsF+HWUXLJ8QA+EUHpwXn y2baRJvwCfT4EG
YTU019Y6cEibPvtmH36w6jQ=
=ldcS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 04:16:20 GMT, m II <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
>>
>>
>> mike

>
> Go to the "Original" size, and look around.
> If this is an example of what the K100D is capable of, I'd steer
> clear.


I have one, and indeed, it does have its "issues".

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Graham Fountain
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 04:16:20 GMT, m II <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
>>
>>
>> mike

>
> Go to the "Original" size, and look around.
> If this is an example of what the K100D is capable of, I'd steer
> clear.

I assume you are referring to the nasty JPG artifacts and posterising in
the red area? Don't take too much notice of that image - it's
compressed to about 700kb, whereas the normal JPG's from the K100D
average about 2.5MB. Therefore the image has at the very least been the
victim of some severe JPG compression - goodness knows what else has
been done to it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Russell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
The image is in the Adobe RGB space. If viewed in a browser, the colors
will be more normal looking, so people may be talking about two different
appearances of the same image. In Photoshop, the image is too red and
saturated.

I used curves in Lab mode to get the skin tones to a nominal hue and
saturation. I converted the original image to sRGB so that it will look
about the same on the web as in Photoshop:

http://mike.russell-home.net/tmp/Model_1/

This is not a professional shot from a lighting and composition standpoint,
but you are obviously experimenting with interesting effects, and your
skills are definitely approaching that level. Keep at it, and try to get
what you can from the criticisms others throw at you here.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:23:55 +1000, Graham Fountain <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 04:16:20 GMT, m II <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
>>>
>>>
>>> mike

>>
>> Go to the "Original" size, and look around.
>> If this is an example of what the K100D is capable of, I'd steer
>> clear.

>I assume you are referring to the nasty JPG artifacts and posterising in
>the red area? Don't take too much notice of that image - it's
>compressed to about 700kb, whereas the normal JPG's from the K100D
>average about 2.5MB. Therefore the image has at the very least been the
>victim of some severe JPG compression - goodness knows what else has
>been done to it.


Don't take too much notice? It was presented to us for just that
purpose.
When my shots are downsized, they don't get that posterization.
Is the mottling actually present in the model's legs?
Same for the chest in
http://www.pbase.com/jackschouten/image/65539065
Look at
http://www.pbase.com/jackschouten/image/64991665
too. What's with the left arm/side of the model? Was it moving? Along
with the hair moving in the same exact way?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
lubecki@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
mogh baba wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:48:56 -0800, "G.T." <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >m II wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
> >>

> >
> >Ugly photo, ugly model, so who cares if it's over or underexposed?

>
>
>
> She is gorgeous, you have to wash your eyes.


Yuck. Dyed blond hair, fake tits, and overplucked eyebrows is NOT
gorgeous...

-Gniewko

 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:12:34 -0800, lubecki wrote:

> mogh baba wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:48:56 -0800, "G.T." <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >m II wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
>> >>
>> >
>> >Ugly photo, ugly model, so who cares if it's over or underexposed?

>>
>>
>>
>> She is gorgeous, you have to wash your eyes.

>
> Yuck. Dyed blond hair, fake tits, and overplucked eyebrows is NOT
> gorgeous...


In the immortal words of Austin Powers, "m-m-m-m-m-m-m-o-o-o-o-o-o-le".

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Reply With Quote
 
m II
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2006
Colin_D wrote:

> m II wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368




> If you think that shot is overexposed, you aint seen nuthin, boy.



I was being modest...



mike
 
Reply With Quote
 
Skip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2006
I'd be inclined to say it's underexposed...

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm


 
Reply With Quote
 
William Graham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2006

"Skip" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:iN9bh.8584$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'd be inclined to say it's underexposed...
>

I saved it, imported it into Photoshop, and lightened it up, but it didn't
really improve it. Sometimes a little too dark in the shadows is
intriguing.....I like her just the way she is.....


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
overexposed in macro Jason K. Lambrou Digital Photography 9 01-24-2005 10:16 PM
best RAW converter to recover blown / overexposed highlights digiboy Digital Photography 21 10-07-2004 11:10 PM
Sony DVP-NS575P: Video washed out, overexposed when playing DVD-Rs Bob Steinbeiser DVD Video 0 07-12-2004 12:16 PM
Extremely Overexposed Bishoop Digital Photography 1 12-28-2003 12:36 AM
Overexposed Jack Digital Photography 7 11-13-2003 02:00 AM



Advertisments