Before, between & final

Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.

Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators

Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent.

Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature.

Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread.

Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

Before, between & final

Postby stubbsy on Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:44 pm

Here is an interesting example of the power of post processing. The following image is a shot I took at the weekend featuring Chimp cover model Rokkstar :wink:

The scene was VERY bright with Matt backlit. I didn't want to lose the highlights so this image was intentionally shot to be dark (100 ISO, -1.0 EV, 1/1250 sec @ f4.5).

Here is the image as it came from the camera. No PP, just resized for the web (to see larger, click this or either of the other images)

Image


As is the case for my PP workflow it was then put through DxO Optics Pro to give this image:

Image


Finally, I opened the DNG file produced by DxO in Photoshop and using some layering for the shadow detail and a few other minor tweaks, I had the finished shot below. Worth noting is that despite the underexposure of the original image it was noise free

Image
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything.
*** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
User avatar
stubbsy
Moderator
 
Posts: 10748
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW - D700

Postby moz on Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:03 pm

well done!

Now all we need is someone to tell us all how film has so much more dynamic range than digital :)
http://www.moz.net.nz
have bicycle, will go to Critical Mass
User avatar
moz
Senior Member
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:50 pm
Location: Coburg, Melbun.

Postby Justin on Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:06 pm

woo hoo I just realised DXO optics 4 is out time for my free upgrade.

On another note, with DXO did u use the wizard or for this one (I imagine) up the lighting fix?
D3 | 18-200VR | 50:1.4 | 28:2.8 | 35-70 2.8 | 12-24 f4
picasaweb.google.com/JustinPhotoGallery
"We don't know and we don't care"
User avatar
Justin
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Newtown, Sydeny

Postby phillipb on Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:48 pm

That's very impressive Peter, but I have one question.
You said that you deliberately underexposed so as not to blow the highlights.
Looking at this shot, the highlights seem to be in the sky. The end result seems to have a blown sky. So my question is, would the result have been much different if you had used the correct exposure in the first place?
__________
Phillip


**Nikon D7000**
User avatar
phillipb
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:56 am
Location: Milperra (Sydney) **Nikon D7000**

Postby stubbsy on Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:01 pm

phillipb wrote:That's very impressive Peter, but I have one question.
You said that you deliberately underexposed so as not to blow the highlights.
Looking at this shot, the highlights seem to be in the sky. The end result seems to have a blown sky. So my question is, would the result have been much different if you had used the correct exposure in the first place?

Very good question Phillip. The first few test shots I took with "normal exposure" all of the sky, much of the circle "around" the shadow and some of the wall was blown (and if I knew I was going to do this I'd have kept them for comparison, but I deleted them in camera sadly). In the original here I dialed down both the EV and (something you can do on the D2x) also overrode the camera's determined shutter speed with a faster one (I shot Aperture Priority). Looking at the original, the sky is still blue (well grey @ around 247, 251, 253 RGB) and the other elements present, with very little completely white.

Justin - I'm using v4 of DxO and I never use the wizard, preferring Expert mode (better for my ego :wink:) - I have my own saved Presets file which I tweaked a touch for this one.
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything.
*** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
User avatar
stubbsy
Moderator
 
Posts: 10748
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW - D700


Return to Image Reviews and Critiques