Bright Light on one side

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Don Dunlap, Dec 2, 2004.

  1. Don Dunlap

    Don Dunlap Guest

    I took this photo from inside through a window out to my patio:

    http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/37043650

    The light from the left washed out one puppy but the other on the right
    looks normal. Is there any way with Photoshop CS that I can correct the
    lighting on the left side without affecting the right? I am not a PS
    expert, but just learning and I can't find a way. Anything I do affects the
    whole frame, which I am beginning to believe is inevitable. Am I wrong?

    Don Dunlap
    Don Dunlap, Dec 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Don Dunlap

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "Don Dunlap"

    >I took this photo from inside through a window out to my patio:
    >
    >http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/37043650
    >
    >The light from the left washed out one puppy but the other on the right
    >looks normal. Is there any way with Photoshop CS that I can correct the
    >lighting on the left side without affecting the right?


    You can try the Shadow/Highlight tool ... Image > Adjustments >
    Shadow/Highlight ... in the 'Highlights' box set the Amount to 50 - 100% (play
    with it) and leave the Tonal Width at 50% ... this is a really neat feature in
    CS.

    If you select the eyedropper and check the Info palette for readings you'll see
    that some of the fur is totally burned out (255/255/255) and only a reshoot
    will help on that, but the S/H tool will pluck out a lot of details from the
    other parts of the image.

    >Anything I do affects the whole frame, which I am beginning to
    >believe is inevitable. Am I wrong?


    You can always mask off different areas to limit the changes to certain areas
    (read up on masking in the CS Help files), but that's done automagically for
    you with S/H ...

    See if that helps ...

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Dec 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Don Dunlap

    Don Dunlap Guest

    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >From: "Don Dunlap"

    >
    >>I took this photo from inside through a window out to my patio:
    >>
    >>http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/37043650
    >>
    >>The light from the left washed out one puppy but the other on the right
    >>looks normal. Is there any way with Photoshop CS that I can correct the
    >>lighting on the left side without affecting the right?

    >
    > You can try the Shadow/Highlight tool ... Image > Adjustments >
    > Shadow/Highlight ... in the 'Highlights' box set the Amount to 50 - 100%
    > (play
    > with it) and leave the Tonal Width at 50% ... this is a really neat
    > feature in
    > CS.
    >
    > If you select the eyedropper and check the Info palette for readings
    > you'll see
    > that some of the fur is totally burned out (255/255/255) and only a
    > reshoot
    > will help on that, but the S/H tool will pluck out a lot of details from
    > the
    > other parts of the image.
    >
    >>Anything I do affects the whole frame, which I am beginning to
    >>believe is inevitable. Am I wrong?

    >
    > You can always mask off different areas to limit the changes to certain
    > areas
    > (read up on masking in the CS Help files), but that's done automagically
    > for
    > you with S/H ...
    >
    > See if that helps ...
    >
    > Bill
    >


    I appreciate the info. I'll try that and let you know how it worked. It
    looked to me as if her fur had just been burned out by the sunlight also.
    I'll see what I can do with the rest of it.

    Thanks
    Don
    Don Dunlap, Dec 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Don Dunlap

    Don Dunlap Guest

    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >From: "Don Dunlap"

    >
    >>I took this photo from inside through a window out to my patio:
    >>
    >>http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/37043650
    >>
    >>The light from the left washed out one puppy but the other on the right
    >>looks normal. Is there any way with Photoshop CS that I can correct the
    >>lighting on the left side without affecting the right?

    >
    > You can try the Shadow/Highlight tool ... Image > Adjustments >
    > Shadow/Highlight ... in the 'Highlights' box set the Amount to 50 - 100%
    > (play
    > with it) and leave the Tonal Width at 50% ... this is a really neat
    > feature in
    > CS.
    >
    > If you select the eyedropper and check the Info palette for readings
    > you'll see
    > that some of the fur is totally burned out (255/255/255) and only a
    > reshoot
    > will help on that, but the S/H tool will pluck out a lot of details from
    > the
    > other parts of the image.
    >
    >>Anything I do affects the whole frame, which I am beginning to
    >>believe is inevitable. Am I wrong?

    >
    > You can always mask off different areas to limit the changes to certain
    > areas
    > (read up on masking in the CS Help files), but that's done automagically
    > for
    > you with S/H ...
    >
    > See if that helps ...
    >
    > Bill
    >


    Bill,

    I changed the Highlights and the Shadow and made minor changes to a couple
    of other settings. I was experimenting. This is not a big change but it
    looks much better to me. It is the original size rather than large, but you
    can select large to see the total effect. The fur on the left puppy is more
    noticeable. Thanks for helping. I need to experiment more - I seem to
    stick only with things that I KNOW work.

    http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/37044650/original

    Don
    Don Dunlap, Dec 2, 2004
    #4
  5. Don Dunlap wrote:

    > ... It looked to me as if her fur had just been
    > burned out by the sunlight also.


    Since you mentioned that you are new at this,
    I'll point out that blown spots on digital photos
    are almost impossible to recover, since data
    in the raw sensor output has been clipped.
    If you have access to a histogram display on
    your camera, that's handy to avoid this kind
    of thing in the future, and some advanced
    cameras even have clipped-zone highlighting
    to tell you if an area is too hot.

    On the other hand, under-exposed images
    can almost always be repaired, so if you spot
    meter at the bright point, turning it gray, while
    your image will be very under-exposed, you
    can bring it up with post-processing or bracketing
    up with exposure compensation in the camera.

    This particular shot should be leveled, IMHO,
    and cropped to put the two dogs at the
    corners. That would make a much greater
    improvement than trying to recover the dog's
    fur at left. There is a very wide dynamic range
    (bright to black), so I'm pretty sure the
    blown area is gone. Selective dodging almost
    always looks bad, ending up with a "pasted-on"
    gray area where you tried to recover detail.

    That said, personally I don't mind blown areas.
    Negative space and black areas with no detail
    are considered proper and esthetically pleasing,
    but everyone always comments about "blown
    highlights." To my eye, a blown area can be
    part of the presentation.

    (This is akin to intentionally violating the
    damnable "rule of thirds" everyone always
    learns in Photo 101, then insists everyone follow
    for the rest of their lives. I also like some
    centered subjects and some right-across-the-
    middle horizons.)
    Peter Shuffle, Dec 2, 2004
    #5
  6. Don Dunlap

    Bob Williams Guest

    Don Dunlap wrote:
    > I took this photo from inside through a window out to my patio:
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/37043650
    >
    > The light from the left washed out one puppy but the other on the right
    > looks normal. Is there any way with Photoshop CS that I can correct the
    > lighting on the left side without affecting the right? I am not a PS
    > expert, but just learning and I can't find a way. Anything I do affects the
    > whole frame, which I am beginning to believe is inevitable. Am I wrong?
    >
    > Don Dunlap
    >



    One way is to use the linear gradient tool to make a mask and then
    adjust levels.
    The darker red part of the image is less affected by the adjustment than
    the lighter red area. Check your CS manual for details if necessary.
    Bob Williams
    Bob Williams, Dec 2, 2004
    #6
  7. Don Dunlap

    Aerticeus Guest

    <sharp intake of breath>

    Maybe it is a good idea bracketing exposures?

    It the scene doesn't change too much it gives you a chance but at (255, 255,
    255) there is not much you can do based on the captured data

    Ah! A second thought!

    I see that ISO is set at 200 - can you reduce this to, say, 50?

    If you can try to replicate the shoot (similarity based on the light) at a
    lower ISO. IMHO ISO 200 is a bit too fast for this scene

    Aerticeus

    "Don Dunlap" <> wrote in message
    news:c4adb$41af77ba$452346c4$...
    >
    > "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> >From: "Don Dunlap"

    >>
    >>>I took this photo from inside through a window out to my patio:
    >>>
    >>>http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/37043650
    >>>
    >>>The light from the left washed out one puppy but the other on the right
    >>>looks normal. Is there any way with Photoshop CS that I can correct the
    >>>lighting on the left side without affecting the right?

    >>
    >> You can try the Shadow/Highlight tool ... Image > Adjustments >
    >> Shadow/Highlight ... in the 'Highlights' box set the Amount to 50 - 100%
    >> (play
    >> with it) and leave the Tonal Width at 50% ... this is a really neat
    >> feature in
    >> CS.
    >>
    >> If you select the eyedropper and check the Info palette for readings
    >> you'll see
    >> that some of the fur is totally burned out (255/255/255) and only a
    >> reshoot
    >> will help on that, but the S/H tool will pluck out a lot of details from
    >> the
    >> other parts of the image.
    >>
    >>>Anything I do affects the whole frame, which I am beginning to
    >>>believe is inevitable. Am I wrong?

    >>
    >> You can always mask off different areas to limit the changes to certain
    >> areas
    >> (read up on masking in the CS Help files), but that's done automagically
    >> for
    >> you with S/H ...
    >>
    >> See if that helps ...
    >>
    >> Bill
    >>

    >
    > Bill,
    >
    > I changed the Highlights and the Shadow and made minor changes to a couple
    > of other settings. I was experimenting. This is not a big change but it
    > looks much better to me. It is the original size rather than large, but
    > you can select large to see the total effect. The fur on the left puppy
    > is more noticeable. Thanks for helping. I need to experiment more - I
    > seem to stick only with things that I KNOW work.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/37044650/original
    >
    > Don
    >
    Aerticeus, Dec 2, 2004
    #7
  8. Don Dunlap

    Don Dunlap Guest

    "Peter Shuffle" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Don Dunlap wrote:
    >
    >> ... It looked to me as if her fur had just been
    >> burned out by the sunlight also.

    >
    > Since you mentioned that you are new at this,
    > I'll point out that blown spots on digital photos
    > are almost impossible to recover, since data
    > in the raw sensor output has been clipped.
    > If you have access to a histogram display on
    > your camera, that's handy to avoid this kind
    > of thing in the future, and some advanced
    > cameras even have clipped-zone highlighting
    > to tell you if an area is too hot.


    I am using a Canon 20D and I still haven't learned everything about it or
    CS. I believe that a histogram is available but I am not at that lever on
    the use of the camera yet. It is a complex piece of equipment and I still
    have a lot to learn.

    >
    > On the other hand, under-exposed images
    > can almost always be repaired, so if you spot
    > meter at the bright point, turning it gray, while
    > your image will be very under-exposed, you
    > can bring it up with post-processing or bracketing
    > up with exposure compensation in the camera.
    >
    > This particular shot should be leveled, IMHO,
    > and cropped to put the two dogs at the
    > corners. That would make a much greater
    > improvement than trying to recover the dog's
    > fur at left. There is a very wide dynamic range
    > (bright to black), so I'm pretty sure the
    > blown area is gone. Selective dodging almost
    > always looks bad, ending up with a "pasted-on"
    > gray area where you tried to recover detail.
    >

    I thought that I had cropped it that way, but maybe I didn't do it well
    enough. I'll look at it again. Thanks

    > That said, personally I don't mind blown areas.
    > Negative space and black areas with no detail
    > are considered proper and esthetically pleasing,
    > but everyone always comments about "blown
    > highlights." To my eye, a blown area can be
    > part of the presentation.
    >
    > (This is akin to intentionally violating the
    > damnable "rule of thirds" everyone always
    > learns in Photo 101, then insists everyone follow
    > for the rest of their lives. I also like some
    > centered subjects and some right-across-the-
    > middle horizons.)
    >

    Blown areas, to me, really look bad in certain situations, such as this one.
    They may be appropriate in some shots, but with animals or people, I would
    have reservations. Maybe I just don't have the artistic ability necessary
    to 'see' this. I know that I am weak in this area.

    Thanks
    Don
    Don Dunlap, Dec 2, 2004
    #8
  9. Don Dunlap

    Don Dunlap Guest

    "Bob Williams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > Don Dunlap wrote:
    >> I took this photo from inside through a window out to my patio:
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/37043650
    >>
    >> The light from the left washed out one puppy but the other on the right
    >> looks normal. Is there any way with Photoshop CS that I can correct the
    >> lighting on the left side without affecting the right? I am not a PS
    >> expert, but just learning and I can't find a way. Anything I do affects
    >> the whole frame, which I am beginning to believe is inevitable. Am I
    >> wrong?
    >>
    >> Don Dunlap

    >
    >
    > One way is to use the linear gradient tool to make a mask and then adjust
    > levels.
    > The darker red part of the image is less affected by the adjustment than
    > the lighter red area. Check your CS manual for details if necessary.
    > Bob Williams
    >


    You are way over my head here. I will have to check more on CS to find out
    what you are talking about. I plan on taking a course on Photoshop in
    January at the local Community College. It may be a waste of time, but I
    have the time.

    Thanks
    Don
    Don Dunlap, Dec 2, 2004
    #9
  10. Don Dunlap wrote:
    > Peter Shuffle wrote:
    >> Don Dunlap wrote:


    >> If you have access to a histogram display on
    >> your camera, that's handy to avoid this kind
    >> of thing in the future, and some advanced
    >> cameras even have clipped-zone highlighting
    >> to tell you if an area is too hot.


    > I am using a Canon 20D and I still haven't
    > learned everything about it or CS. I believe
    > that a histogram is available but I am not at
    > that level on the use of the camera yet.


    You have histogram display. Look into it.
    It's an extremely powerful tool for exposure.
    Spending a couple hours learning about histograms
    can change the way you take pictures forever.

    >> This particular shot should be leveled, IMHO,
    >> and cropped to put the two dogs at the
    >> corners.


    > I thought that I had cropped it that way ...


    I'm talking about two things. One is to level
    the horizontal lines like the table and the back
    of the porch. CS has a simple tool to do this,
    or you could rotate the shot to the right. Even
    though it may be slanted in real life, in the photo
    I think it would look better leveled off. The
    second thing I would do is crop closely. You
    show a lot of porch wall and floor, which detracts
    from the dogs. You may be fond of the porch,
    but it might make a better photo if you close-
    cropped. Try putting one dog in each corner
    (after leveling) and ruthlessly cutting everything
    else out. Try getting as close to the dogs as
    you can, with just a pixel of space at the edge.
    Then you can try using that damned rule of thirds,
    putting one dog at each focal point. See which
    you like best. Ask your spouse or a friend what
    they think. I'll bet that everyone picks a shot that's
    cropped closer and doesn't show so much porch
    (or lanai if you're west of me).
    Peter Shuffle, Dec 2, 2004
    #10
  11. Don Dunlap

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >> You can try the Shadow/Highlight tool

    >From: "Don Dunlap"
    >
    >Bill,
    >
    >I changed the Highlights and the Shadow and made minor changes to a couple
    >of other settings. I was experimenting. This is not a big change but it
    >looks much better to me ... Thanks for helping.


    Hi Don, I took the liberty of downloading your jpeg and running S/H on it at
    about 65% or so, here's what I got without any other adjustments ...
    http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/Lightfromtheleft.jpg ... to me the left dog
    looks better and you can see more details in the wall at the back. I'll delete
    this today since it's a copyright violation on my part but thought I'd put it
    up FYI. I did add a © Don Dunlap to it.

    In another post to this thread you mention not yet knowing how to display (and
    maybe interpret) the histogram ... I don't have that particular model camera or
    I'd tell you, but I would say that learning how to use the histogram will save
    you a great deal of editing effort, especially if you set it to flash burned
    out highlights. Well worth the effort of looking thru the manual and finding
    out how to preview images with the histogram showing. Here's a link to a site
    that briefly explains how to interpret the histogram display ...
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understan
    ding-histograms.shtml

    Also, if you shoot RAW mode you can often rescue burned out highlights IF all
    three channels aren't clipped (ie, are less than 255). This is one of the
    advantages of shooting RAW mode compared to jpegs. The Photoshop CS RAW
    converter does a good job of this.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Dec 2, 2004
    #11
  12. Don Dunlap

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: Bob Williams

    >One way is to use the linear gradient tool to make a mask and then
    >adjust levels.


    This is a very good idea when the drop off is gradual (like flash fall-off) but
    I tried it initially on Don's image and it didn't work as well due to the way
    the light is striking the scene.
    Bill Hilton, Dec 2, 2004
    #12
  13. Don Dunlap

    Don Dunlap Guest

    "Peter Shuffle" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Don Dunlap wrote:
    >> Peter Shuffle wrote:
    >>> Don Dunlap wrote:

    >
    >>> If you have access to a histogram display on
    >>> your camera, that's handy to avoid this kind
    >>> of thing in the future, and some advanced
    >>> cameras even have clipped-zone highlighting
    >>> to tell you if an area is too hot.

    >
    >> I am using a Canon 20D and I still haven't
    >> learned everything about it or CS. I believe
    >> that a histogram is available but I am not at
    >> that level on the use of the camera yet.

    >
    > You have histogram display. Look into it.
    > It's an extremely powerful tool for exposure.
    > Spending a couple hours learning about histograms
    > can change the way you take pictures forever.
    >
    >>> This particular shot should be leveled, IMHO,
    >>> and cropped to put the two dogs at the
    >>> corners.

    >
    >> I thought that I had cropped it that way ...

    >
    > I'm talking about two things. One is to level
    > the horizontal lines like the table and the back
    > of the porch. CS has a simple tool to do this,
    > or you could rotate the shot to the right. Even
    > though it may be slanted in real life, in the photo
    > I think it would look better leveled off. The
    > second thing I would do is crop closely. You
    > show a lot of porch wall and floor, which detracts
    > from the dogs. You may be fond of the porch,
    > but it might make a better photo if you close-
    > cropped. Try putting one dog in each corner
    > (after leveling) and ruthlessly cutting everything
    > else out. Try getting as close to the dogs as
    > you can, with just a pixel of space at the edge.
    > Then you can try using that damned rule of thirds,
    > putting one dog at each focal point. See which
    > you like best. Ask your spouse or a friend what
    > they think. I'll bet that everyone picks a shot that's
    > cropped closer and doesn't show so much porch
    > (or lanai if you're west of me).

    OK, I'll try that and post what I end up with. I think I know what you are
    talking about now. I hadn't thought about rotating the shot and it still
    seems a little strange, but I'll experiment.

    Thanks
    Don
    Don Dunlap, Dec 2, 2004
    #13
  14. Don Dunlap

    Don Dunlap Guest

    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>> You can try the Shadow/Highlight tool

    >
    >>From: "Don Dunlap"
    >>
    >>Bill,
    >>
    >>I changed the Highlights and the Shadow and made minor changes to a couple
    >>of other settings. I was experimenting. This is not a big change but it
    >>looks much better to me ... Thanks for helping.

    >
    > Hi Don, I took the liberty of downloading your jpeg and running S/H on it
    > at
    > about 65% or so, here's what I got without any other adjustments ...
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/Lightfromtheleft.jpg ... to me the left
    > dog
    > looks better and you can see more details in the wall at the back. I'll
    > delete
    > this today since it's a copyright violation on my part but thought I'd put
    > it
    > up FYI. I did add a © Don Dunlap to it.
    >
    > In another post to this thread you mention not yet knowing how to display
    > (and
    > maybe interpret) the histogram ... I don't have that particular model
    > camera or
    > I'd tell you, but I would say that learning how to use the histogram will
    > save
    > you a great deal of editing effort, especially if you set it to flash
    > burned
    > out highlights. Well worth the effort of looking thru the manual and
    > finding
    > out how to preview images with the histogram showing. Here's a link to a
    > site
    > that briefly explains how to interpret the histogram display ...
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understan
    > ding-histograms.shtml
    >
    > Also, if you shoot RAW mode you can often rescue burned out highlights IF
    > all
    > three channels aren't clipped (ie, are less than 255). This is one of the
    > advantages of shooting RAW mode compared to jpegs. The Photoshop CS RAW
    > converter does a good job of this.
    >
    > Bill
    >

    I took your settings and Peter's suggestion about cropping and rotating, and
    came up with this. This will be the last time I bother you guys. I want to
    thank you all for your suggestions

    http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/37046924

    Don
    Don Dunlap, Dec 2, 2004
    #14
  15. Don Dunlap

    Don Dunlap Guest

    "Peter Shuffle" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Don Dunlap wrote:
    >> Peter Shuffle wrote:
    >>> Don Dunlap wrote:

    >
    >>> If you have access to a histogram display on
    >>> your camera, that's handy to avoid this kind
    >>> of thing in the future, and some advanced
    >>> cameras even have clipped-zone highlighting
    >>> to tell you if an area is too hot.

    >
    >> I am using a Canon 20D and I still haven't
    >> learned everything about it or CS. I believe
    >> that a histogram is available but I am not at
    >> that level on the use of the camera yet.

    >
    > You have histogram display. Look into it.
    > It's an extremely powerful tool for exposure.
    > Spending a couple hours learning about histograms
    > can change the way you take pictures forever.
    >
    >>> This particular shot should be leveled, IMHO,
    >>> and cropped to put the two dogs at the
    >>> corners.

    >
    >> I thought that I had cropped it that way ...

    >
    > I'm talking about two things. One is to level
    > the horizontal lines like the table and the back
    > of the porch. CS has a simple tool to do this,
    > or you could rotate the shot to the right. Even
    > though it may be slanted in real life, in the photo
    > I think it would look better leveled off. The
    > second thing I would do is crop closely. You
    > show a lot of porch wall and floor, which detracts
    > from the dogs. You may be fond of the porch,
    > but it might make a better photo if you close-
    > cropped. Try putting one dog in each corner
    > (after leveling) and ruthlessly cutting everything
    > else out. Try getting as close to the dogs as
    > you can, with just a pixel of space at the edge.
    > Then you can try using that damned rule of thirds,
    > putting one dog at each focal point. See which
    > you like best. Ask your spouse or a friend what
    > they think. I'll bet that everyone picks a shot that's
    > cropped closer and doesn't show so much porch
    > (or lanai if you're west of me).
    >

    Peter,

    I cropped it and rotated it 5 degrees clockwise and it is posted at:

    http://www.pbase.com/dondunlap/image/37046924

    I see now, after I posted it, that I didn't crop quite enough at the top.
    There is a thin line of wall showing over the top of the dog on the left and
    it is distracting. I didn't notice it at first, but after looking at it a
    second time, it looks bad. Thanks for the assistance and I know that I have
    a lot to learn. Tips from everyone on the forum are invaluable and might,
    just maybe, improve my composition and management of my photos.

    Thanks again,
    Don
    Don Dunlap, Dec 2, 2004
    #15
  16. Don Dunlap wrote:

    > I see now, after I posted it, that I didn't crop
    > quite enough at the top.


    Or need to leave more margin, because I
    gave you bummer directions! Anyway, you
    have a couple new tools to play with. Enjoy!
    Peter Shuffle, Dec 2, 2004
    #16
  17. Don Dunlap

    Guest

    In message <f1a21$41af7f28$452346c4$>,
    "Don Dunlap" <> wrote:

    >I believe that a histogram is available but I am not at that lever on
    >the use of the camera yet.


    Just cycle through the review modes by pressing the info button while
    reviewing an image.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Dec 3, 2004
    #17
  18. Don Dunlap

    Guest

    In message <f1a21$41af7f28$452346c4$>,
    "Don Dunlap" <> wrote:

    >Blown areas, to me, really look bad in certain situations, such as this one.
    >They may be appropriate in some shots, but with animals or people, I would
    >have reservations. Maybe I just don't have the artistic ability necessary
    >to 'see' this. I know that I am weak in this area.


    You can expose images so that they don't blow out, and experiment with
    blowing them out in software.

    In most "levels"-type tools, you just grab the input highlight slider
    and move it to the left to start blowing out the image.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Dec 3, 2004
    #18
    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. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    625
    Walter Roberson
    Dec 15, 2004
  2. TRUE

    Help. Windows Explorer side-by-side window

    TRUE, May 10, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    758
    °Mike°
    May 10, 2004
  3. Eric
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    627
    Toolman Tim
    Jul 28, 2005
  4. R2D2

    G5 vs G3 Side-by-side Pics

    R2D2, Feb 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    427
    Guenter Fieblinger
    Feb 10, 2004
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    259
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Oct 16, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page