Hi Paul,

I really like your fantasy image. I honestly do not mind the purple cast, and the blue is OK, as well, but seems just a tad darker? Removing the stars in front of the moon is a plus, since even for fantasy it is better without. I honestly do not mind lack of shadows for the fence, and just isn't totally unbelievable, since the fence slats are small, tall, and narrow and may not even cast shadows with the moonlight just right.

Also, the lack of turn around footprints for the fox is also OK, since the fox may have turned aroiund quite tightly and is really sitting on his turn around footprints along with the excellent body shadow work you have done.. Fox can and do make very tight position changes, and I don't see that as a problem at all.

Very nice job - now I have something to think about doing someday for a fantasy composite. You have a nice imagination and good PP'ing composite work combining yoiur separate images.

Best Regards,
Tom

Thanks, Jim. Just my curiosity working overtime!

Best Regards,
Tom

Jim,

Did you remove it or did Admin? It must have been pretty riské!

Best Regards,
Tom

Hi John,

I am going to add a comment I had made/written/responded some time ago to another UHH member asking about Bridge.



When I open Bridge, I can look at all my images for a given shoot pretty quickly and can cull them If I choose to do so at that initial point, but seldom do at times. Looking at them in Bridge is nice since they are large images basically full screen on my 27" monitor. I can then choose an image or multiple images and open them up in ACR and make whatever adjustments I want which is very easy to do and apply to all or just some of the images (if I do one and then sync several choosing whatever criteria I want to apply to more images). You can then save the changed image(s) to a variety of formats to a folder of your choosing. By doing so, you get that new changed image in the new format (psd, jpg, tiff, dng, etc) as well as retain the same unchanged RAW image(s) you began with. Also, you can immediately open the image(s) in Photoshop and start working on them for further selective or global changes you can make (using layers), but are not able to make in LR.

OK, another way to do it is to just pick one image and open in ACR. Process it, and then back in Bridge, you can choose to copy the changes you made, and then, you can highlight however many different images you want to paste the changes to and apply those changes to images in Bridge without getting out of Bridge (no need to go back into ACR) and the changes appear to the images you have chosen right in Bridge on your screen. However, the changes are made to your original image(s) and so you don't get to keep your unchanged RAW image in Bridge.

I hope you can follow what I said in the two paragraphs, above, and see some advantages and disadvantages of each. I sincerely hope this all makes some sense and helps you out with your question/quandary you seem to be facing.

Best Regards,
Tm

P.S. I find Bridge quite useful many times if I want to quickly make some changes to several images and retain my original RAW unchanged file(s), and then go right into Photoshop. However, that can be done in LR also, as you already know.

[quote=NJFrank]

NJFrank,



Yes, that is a huge difference and the closeup looks sooooo much better! It actually looks real and not discolored at all. I used to underexpose shots most all the time and I always shoot in RAW. I agree that the underexposure seems to make PP'ing more viable and more accessible to achieve better colors, more contrast, better colors and realism. I now underexpose much less, but still tend to underexpose. I find that the highlights slider in ACR does a great job in bringing out better contrast, more detail, and better color depending upon the image, of course.

Best Regards,
Tom

This must be a composite, right? It has it's own appeal, and seems well done and fitting for this effect. To me it is almost like a cartoon fantasy image?

Best Regards,
Tom

Hey Dave,

Both are good, but much prefer the Sepia Tone for this image. As someone mentioned already, it just seems more fitting, probably due to the era portrayed in the pictures. Nice job and much better than the color version!

Best Regards,
Tom

Cliff,

I like the first color one the best. Lighting in all of them seems good. I also like the clear glasses and no reflection in the first image. The backdrop is quite good and very fitting! I have a son who is in Aviation in the Army and flies Blackhawks out of a post in Germany. He claims it is very dangerous to fly helicopters in many cases, much more so than fixed wing aircraft which you are very familiar with. He says they never fly over the Alps and always route around them since that is very dangerous in a chopper.

Best Regards,
Tom

Hi Linda,

I started changing my color space to sRGB when posting images to UHH (when I think of it), and they seem to be much better on UHH and more what I see on my computer screen. I think the change is well worth the effort.

Best Regards,
Tom

NJFrank,

I like Frank2013 and Linda's renditions of the snow and the crop. The snow is much whiter and better looking - more realistic color. We just had snow showers yesterday here in SE Ohio. I did take a couple quick pictures to compare the snow and the tone of the rest of the pictures using an E.V +2 compared with no E.V. at all.

I decided to do that after reading someone's post yesterday telling an original image poster how to make his snow more white and real and less grey. Hence, I did my own test just to see, but haven't processed the RAW format images as of yet. We essentially have had very, very little winter this year, so I suspect the summer bugs will be atrocious!

Best Regards,
Tom

Steve,

It is #4 for me.

Tom

Japakomom,

Thanks for the information. I never bothered to get the EXIF data (although I have several programs that would display it for me - maybe I was just lazy, a little, too!) - just ran out of time and thought I'd just ask the couple questions I had thinking a reply would be easy and not take much time. I appreciate your efforts, here.

Best Regards,
Tom

Madhukr,

If you can use your version of PS, then you should have NO problems with LR. As mentioned earlier, the two programs were made for two different final purposes. LR catalogs images and lets you process images quickly and easily. PS is much more complex with layers, masks, etc., and starts getting down to the nitty gritty when wanting to make selective changes to an image.

I held out for a long time owning both PS versions (4 or 5 versions) as well as LR versions, but then finally gave in and rent the two programs from Adobe (which I really don't agree with) and get 'free' automatic updates until I have to renew renting after a year's time. I use them both.

Often times I will just open up my RAW images using Adobe Bridge and do initial processing (basically like using LR - really about the same engine) and then save under a different name in a different format, so I can keep the unchanged RAW image, and continue processing in PS CC 2017 if I need or want to. Hope this helps.

Best Regards,
Tom

rr,

As someone else already expressed, the sepia tone is excellent for these old, possibly rusted items and objects. I think you hit the nail on the head, this time! Very enjoyable - Thanks.

Best Regards,
Tom

tinplater,

This is a very nice snap. How much did you Post Process it, and, with what image editing software program? Also, what camera body (a Sony?) is your new, used lens on? Did you use full manual mode or one of the other 'programmed' modes on your camera?

I've been thinking about trying to get a 50 mm 1.4 prime lens for my Nikon D800. Of course, the one deterrent is the high cost. I have 3 other used lenses and only have one other lens that I actually bought brand new, so I am not fearful of purchasing used equipment. Thanks in advance.

Best Regards,
Tom