A Photo Made Possible by Modern Camera Technology

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by M-M, Jun 16, 2007.

  1. M-M

    M-M Guest

    The technology that saved the day:

    Nikon VR: The exposure was 1/30 handheld at 300mm (450 equiv)!

    Nikon D-Lighting: It was underexposed and corrected in-camera. I know it
    is possible to produce the same effect with Photoshop, but I couldn't
    with Elements. I think you need to use curves.

    No other post-processing except cropping and resizing:

    http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/CSC_5940n.jpg

    --
    m-m
    www.mhmyers.com
    M-M, Jun 16, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. M-M

    maria Guest

    Re: A Photo Made Possible by Modern Camera Technology (Better?)

    On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:47:01 -0400, M-M <> wrote:

    >The technology that saved the day:
    >
    >Nikon VR: The exposure was 1/30 handheld at 300mm (450 equiv)!
    >
    >Nikon D-Lighting: It was underexposed and corrected in-camera. I know it
    >is possible to produce the same effect with Photoshop, but I couldn't
    >with Elements. I think you need to use curves.
    >
    >No other post-processing except cropping and resizing:
    >
    >http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/CSC_5940n.jpg


    I took the liberty of playting with the image a little.
    I will delete it in a couple of hours.

    http://www.soulis.org/image.jpg

    soulis
    maria, Jun 16, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Re: A Photo Made Possible by Modern Camera Technology (Better?)

    maria wrote:
    > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:47:01 -0400, M-M <> wrote:
    >> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/CSC_5940n.jpg

    >
    > I took the liberty of playting with the image a little.
    > I will delete it in a couple of hours.
    >
    > http://www.soulis.org/image.jpg


    To be honest, I like the original better. It is just more natural while the
    processing you did introduced an artifical feeling, that I would expect on
    cheesy post cards where the color saturation is turned up as far as
    possible.

    But that may very well be just me.

    jue
    Jürgen Exner, Jun 16, 2007
    #3
  4. Re: A Photo Made Possible by Modern Camera Technology (Better?)

    Jürgen Exner wrote:
    > maria wrote:
    >> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:47:01 -0400, M-M <> wrote:
    >>> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/CSC_5940n.jpg

    >> I took the liberty of playting with the image a little.
    >> I will delete it in a couple of hours.
    >>
    >> http://www.soulis.org/image.jpg

    >
    > To be honest, I like the original better. It is just more natural while the
    > processing you did introduced an artifical feeling, that I would expect on
    > cheesy post cards where the color saturation is turned up as far as
    > possible.
    >
    > But that may very well be just me.

    \\

    It could be your browser or monitor as well. The original is good, but
    dull; possibly it's an aRGB image which displays in sRGB. The
    adjustments look good on my screen.

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Jun 16, 2007
    #4
  5. M-M

    M-M Guest

    Re: A Photo Made Possible by Modern Camera Technology (Better?)

    In article <>,
    John McWilliams <> wrote:

    > Jürgen Exner wrote:
    > > maria wrote:
    > >> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:47:01 -0400, M-M <> wrote:
    > >>> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/CSC_5940n.jpg
    > >> I took the liberty of playting with the image a little.
    > >> I will delete it in a couple of hours.
    > >>
    > >> http://www.soulis.org/image.jpg

    > >
    > > To be honest, I like the original better. It is just more natural while the
    > > processing you did introduced an artifical feeling, that I would expect on
    > > cheesy post cards where the color saturation is turned up as far as
    > > possible.
    > >
    > > But that may very well be just me.

    > \\
    >
    > It could be your browser or monitor as well. The original is good, but
    > dull; possibly it's an aRGB image which displays in sRGB. The
    > adjustments look good on my screen.



    I know it could have been sharpened a bit. Here it is after Elements USM:

    I also inset the original underexposed image with the histograms showing
    how the camera changed the levels:

    http://www.mhmyers.com/temp/CSC_5940ps.jpg

    --
    m-m
    M-M, Jun 16, 2007
    #5
  6. M-M

    George Kerby Guest

    Re: A Photo Made Possible by Modern Camera Technology (Better?)

    On 6/16/07 9:16 AM, in article ,
    "maria" <maria@maria_de_napoli.com> wrote:

    > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:47:01 -0400, M-M <> wrote:
    >
    >> The technology that saved the day:
    >>
    >> Nikon VR: The exposure was 1/30 handheld at 300mm (450 equiv)!
    >>
    >> Nikon D-Lighting: It was underexposed and corrected in-camera. I know it
    >> is possible to produce the same effect with Photoshop, but I couldn't
    >> with Elements. I think you need to use curves.
    >>
    >> No other post-processing except cropping and resizing:
    >>
    >> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/CSC_5940n.jpg

    >
    > I took the liberty of playting with the image a little.
    > I will delete it in a couple of hours.
    >
    > http://www.soulis.org/image.jpg
    >
    > soulis
    >

    Looks like what it is.
    George Kerby, Jun 16, 2007
    #6
  7. M-M

    George Kerby Guest

    Re: A Photo Made Possible by Modern Camera Technology (Better?)

    On 6/16/07 9:26 AM, in article 7qSci.165$M%4.70@trndny08, "Jürgen Exner"
    <> wrote:

    > maria wrote:
    >> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:47:01 -0400, M-M <> wrote:
    >>> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/CSC_5940n.jpg

    >>
    >> I took the liberty of playting with the image a little.
    >> I will delete it in a couple of hours.
    >>
    >> http://www.soulis.org/image.jpg

    >
    > To be honest, I like the original better. It is just more natural while the
    > processing you did introduced an artifical feeling, that I would expect on
    > cheesy post cards where the color saturation is turned up as far as
    > possible.
    >
    > But that may very well be just me.
    >
    > jue
    >
    >

    No it isn't just you. It's awful. Believe me.
    George Kerby, Jun 16, 2007
    #7
  8. Re: A Photo Made Possible by Modern Camera Technology (Better?)

    maria wrote:

    > I took the liberty of playting with the image a little.
    > I will delete it in a couple of hours.
    >
    > http://www.soulis.org/image.jpg


    It looks like you got a bit too aggressive in PS. Here's a version with a
    bit more life in it. I will delete it in several hours.

    <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/pics/CSC_5940nn.jpg>





    Rita
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 16, 2007
    #8
  9. Re: A Photo Made Possible by Modern Camera Technology (Better?)

    M-M wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > John McWilliams <> wrote:
    >
    >> Jürgen Exner wrote:
    >>> maria wrote:
    >>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:47:01 -0400, M-M <> wrote:
    >>>>> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/CSC_5940n.jpg
    >>>> I took the liberty of playting with the image a little.
    >>>> I will delete it in a couple of hours.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.soulis.org/image.jpg
    >>> To be honest, I like the original better. It is just more natural while the
    >>> processing you did introduced an artifical feeling, that I would expect on
    >>> cheesy post cards where the color saturation is turned up as far as
    >>> possible.
    >>>
    >>> But that may very well be just me.

    >> \\
    >>
    >> It could be your browser or monitor as well. The original is good, but
    >> dull; possibly it's an aRGB image which displays in sRGB. The
    >> adjustments look good on my screen.

    >
    >
    > I know it could have been sharpened a bit. Here it is after Elements USM:
    >
    > I also inset the original underexposed image with the histograms showing
    > how the camera changed the levels:
    >
    > http://www.mhmyers.com/temp/CSC_5940ps.jpg
    >


    What color space are you working in? What was it exported to for the web?

    I wish folks wouldn't post a picture for a very short time; not
    everyone can see the variations, and going back to check on initial
    impressions becomes difficult.

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Jun 16, 2007
    #9
  10. M-M

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 16, 7:47 am, M-M <> wrote:
    > The technology that saved the day:
    >
    > Nikon VR: The exposure was 1/30 handheld at 300mm (450 equiv)!
    >
    > Nikon D-Lighting: It was underexposed and corrected in-camera. I know it
    > is possible to produce the same effect with Photoshop, but I couldn't
    > with Elements. I think you need to use curves.
    >
    > No other post-processing except cropping and resizing:
    >
    > http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/CSC_5940n.jpg
    >
    > --
    > m-mwww.mhmyers.com


    I wish I had VR. 1/125sec, handheld 300mm (600mm equivalent).
    http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/80148044
    RichA, Jun 16, 2007
    #10
  11. M-M

    soulis Guest

    Re: A Photo Made Possible by Modern Camera Technology (Better?)

    On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:37:58 -0400, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04
    @aol.com> wrote:

    >maria wrote:
    >
    >> I took the liberty of playting with the image a little.
    >> I will delete it in a couple of hours.
    >>
    >> http://www.soulis.org/image.jpg

    >
    >It looks like you got a bit too aggressive in PS. Here's a version with a
    >bit more life in it. I will delete it in several hours.
    >
    ><http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/pics/CSC_5940nn.jpg>
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >Rita

    I made the image sharper and more contrasty.
    I consider it copyrighted by its owner. That is why
    I deleted it. If you want to see my work, over 800 images, total,
    please go to

    http://www.pbase.com/soulis/soulis_colors_of_impressionism

    I think that you won't be disappointed.
    Thank you guys.

    soulis
    soulis, Jun 16, 2007
    #11
  12. M-M

    George Kerby Guest

    Re: A Photo Made Possible by Modern Camera Technology (Better?)

    On 6/16/07 10:37 AM, in article , "Rita Ä
    Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:

    > maria wrote:
    >
    >> I took the liberty of playting with the image a little.
    >> I will delete it in a couple of hours.
    >>
    >> http://www.soulis.org/image.jpg

    >
    > It looks like you got a bit too aggressive in PS. Here's a version with a
    > bit more life in it. I will delete it in several hours.
    >
    > <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/pics/CSC_5940nn.jpg>
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita
    >

    Pretty damn good.
    George Kerby, Jun 16, 2007
    #12
  13. M-M

    M-M Guest

    Re: A Photo Made Possible by Modern Camera Technology (Better?)

    In article <>,
    John McWilliams <> wrote:

    > > I also inset the original underexposed image with the histograms showing
    > > how the camera changed the levels:
    > >
    > > http://www.mhmyers.com/temp/CSC_5940ps.jpg
    > >

    >
    > What color space are you working in? What was it exported to for the web?


    I wish I understood that concept better. I did get some sort of warning
    in Photoshop when I flattened it.

    What do I look for to get you your answer?

    --
    m-m
    M-M, Jun 16, 2007
    #13
  14. M-M

    ASAAR Guest

    Re: A Photo Made Possible by Modern Camera Technology (Better?)

    On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:33:20 -0400, M-M wrote:

    >> What color space are you working in? What was it exported to for the web?

    >
    > I wish I understood that concept better. I did get some sort of warning
    > in Photoshop when I flattened it.
    >
    > What do I look for to get you your answer?


    The EXIF shows that the color space used was sRGB. The D80 has
    two sRGB menu options, Ia and IIIa. I'm not familiar enough with
    the EXIF to know if it has any info. buried within it to distinguish
    between Ia and IIIa. The manual indicates that Ia is preferable for
    portraits and IIIa is better used for nature or landscape shots.
    ASAAR, Jun 16, 2007
    #14
  15. Re: A Photo Made Possible by Modern Camera Technology (Better?)

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:33:20 -0400, M-M wrote:
    >
    >>> What color space are you working in? What was it exported to for the web?

    >> I wish I understood that concept better. I did get some sort of warning
    >> in Photoshop when I flattened it.
    >>
    >> What do I look for to get you your answer?

    >
    > The EXIF shows that the color space used was sRGB. The D80 has
    > two sRGB menu options, Ia and IIIa. I'm not familiar enough with
    > the EXIF to know if it has any info. buried within it to distinguish
    > between Ia and IIIa. The manual indicates that Ia is preferable for
    > portraits and IIIa is better used for nature or landscape shots.



    The image, tho, is untagged, and for whatever reason, shows just like an
    aRBG image does in a color-UNmanaged browser; but it also shows poorly
    in Safari, which is color managed.

    However, it displays just right in PS, and then, by *assigning* the sRGB
    space, it displays right in Safari, but not Firefox.

    By *"converting"* it to sRGB, it displays right in both above browsers.
    The assigning and converting do not gainsay that it was done in sRGB all
    the way; just reporting what occurred here.

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Jun 16, 2007
    #15
  16. Re: A Photo Made Possible by Modern Camera Technology (Better?)

    M-M wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > John McWilliams <> wrote:
    >
    >>> I also inset the original underexposed image with the histograms showing
    >>> how the camera changed the levels:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.mhmyers.com/temp/CSC_5940ps.jpg
    >>>

    >> What color space are you working in? What was it exported to for the web?

    >
    > I wish I understood that concept better. I did get some sort of warning
    > in Photoshop when I flattened it.
    >
    > What do I look for to get you your answer?


    I think a lot of answers might come if you posted also the same photo,
    but running "convert to profile" and choosing sRGB. Yes, I do believe
    that that's the space you've been working in, but on the web site, it's
    showing that it's "untagged"; therefor no "official" color space.

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Jun 16, 2007
    #16
  17. M-M

    M-M Guest

    Re: A Photo Made Possible by Modern Camera Technology (Better?)

    In article <>,
    ASAAR <> wrote:

    > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:33:20 -0400, M-M wrote:
    >
    > >> What color space are you working in? What was it exported to for the web?

    > >
    > > I wish I understood that concept better. I did get some sort of warning
    > > in Photoshop when I flattened it.
    > >
    > > What do I look for to get you your answer?

    >
    > The EXIF shows that the color space used was sRGB. The D80 has
    > two sRGB menu options, Ia and IIIa. I'm not familiar enough with
    > the EXIF to know if it has any info. buried within it to distinguish
    > between Ia and IIIa. The manual indicates that Ia is preferable for
    > portraits and IIIa is better used for nature or landscape shots.



    The color mode on my camera is IIIa. Now what?

    --
    m-m
    M-M, Jun 16, 2007
    #17
  18. RichA wrote:

    > I wish I had VR. 1/125sec, handheld 300mm (600mm equivalent).
    > http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/80148044


    I agree! Us unfortunate souls have to suffer with a 70-200mm VR and a 2x
    Torque Converter. Sadly Nikon doesn't make a 400/2.8VR or 500/4VR.

    <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/watching.htm>






    Rita
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 17, 2007
    #18
  19. M-M

    Rich Guest

    On Jun 16, 9:10 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    > > I wish I had VR. 1/125sec, handheld 300mm (600mm equivalent).
    > >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/80148044

    >
    > I agree! Us unfortunate souls have to suffer with a 70-200mm VR and a 2x
    > Torque Converter. Sadly Nikon doesn't make a 400/2.8VR or 500/4VR.
    >
    > <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/watching.htm>
    >
    > Rita


    People who buy the 70-200mm are spoiled. When they go to get
    something else, it never seems as sharp.
    Rich, Jun 17, 2007
    #19
  20. M-M

    Mike Russell Guest

    From: "M-M" <>

    > The technology that saved the day:
    > Nikon VR: The exposure was 1/30 handheld at 300mm (450 equiv)!
    > Nikon D-Lighting: It was underexposed and corrected in-camera. I know it
    > is possible to produce the same effect with Photoshop, but I couldn't
    > with Elements. I think you need to use curves.


    > No other post-processing except cropping and resizing:


    > http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/CSC_5940n.jpg


    Good job! Here's my version after using sharpening and curves:
    http://mike.russell-home.net/tmp/tweet/
    --
    Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com
    Mike Russell, Jun 17, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ivanna25
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    632
    ivanna25
    May 8, 2006
  2. tim

    art & modern technology

    tim, May 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    404
    Bill Hilton
    May 7, 2005
  3. Tim

    art & modern technology

    Tim, May 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    311
    Sheldon
    May 7, 2005
  4. °..Jan Plexy..°

    "L" lens technology or "DO" technology??

    °..Jan Plexy..°, Oct 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    443
    SamSez
    Oct 4, 2005
  5. jazu

    Rebel XT, made in Japan, made in Thailand

    jazu, Dec 8, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,008
    John Turco
    Dec 12, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page