Because of the shade
Apr 27, 2016 03:03:28 #
Frank2013 wrote:
Don't know if this is any better but I think I understand your shade comment. When I posted the first I had not noticed the color getting away as I was too intent on clearing the look.
Yea I reckon you nailed there.
Apr 27, 2016 07:19:38 #
Frank2013 wrote:
Don't know if this is any better but I think I understand your shade comment. When I posted the first I had not noticed the color getting away as I was too intent on clearing the look.
It is an excellent image, very well composed and with great detail. I like Frank's second version best of the lot. He did away with the shade induced haze but retained the tone and color of the shaded light. The murky look is something I've encountered in similar circumstances and have not always found a way to mitigate. Frank, what did you do?
Apr 27, 2016 07:25:22 #
Frank2013
Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.
I believe for the most part very slight movement of the Offset and Gamma Correction sliders in exposure adjustment.
Apr 27, 2016 07:28:35 #
Frank2013 wrote:
I believe for the most part very slight movement of the Offset and Gamma Correction sliders in exposure adjustment.
Would you mind saying that in English?
Apr 27, 2016 07:34:33 #
Apr 27, 2016 07:42:26 #
minniev wrote:
Would you mind saying that in English?
Im with you Frank and never tell porky pies on these pages again that you do not know a lot about PP!!!!!! That is not the way I would have thought of going but obviously it works and is simple to use. Well done my friend.
min you find it in PS go Image>Adjustments>Exposure
Apr 27, 2016 07:48:41 #
Frank2013
Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.
minniev wrote:
Sorry, thought I did. Ps, adjustments, exposure, properties, left with Offset slider, right with Gamma Correction slider. Very gently with both.Would you mind saying that in English?
Apr 27, 2016 07:52:14 #
Frank2013
Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.
Billyspad wrote:
Glad I was able to get my point understood and always glad to have helped in some way.That is not the way I would have thought of going but obviously it works and is simple to use. Well done my friend.
Apr 27, 2016 07:52:32 #
Frank2013 wrote:
Sorry, thought I did. Ps, adjustments, exposure, properties, left with Offset slider, right with Gamma Correction slider. Very gently with both.
OK, I will give that a whirl!
Apr 27, 2016 22:55:15 #
Billyspad wrote:
Got a vague idea what you mean bro. Here is the version given the trademark Billy treatment. What your used to I suppose. Version originally posted was dusty old guy in dusty old place so left it more natural.
See if ya like version 2 any better
See if ya like version 2 any better
Billy, as has been pointed out already, good composition, interesting character, and far better contrast throughout than the initial posted photo.
--Bob
Apr 28, 2016 12:15:32 #
Nicely done Billy, and a great explanation of how to do it - now all I've got to do is pluck up the courage, or perhaps have a pint of Courage first! By the way, didn't realise you were were just a kid - thought you were about my age!
Apr 28, 2016 20:20:00 #
rmalarz wrote:
Billy, as has been pointed out already, good composition, interesting character, and far better contrast throughout than the initial posted photo.
--Bob
--Bob
Ol Frank did a better job than me with the PP. I bow to the master.
Thanks for calling by Bob.
Apr 28, 2016 20:21:42 #
magnetoman wrote:
Nicely done Billy, and a great explanation of how to do it - now all I've got to do is pluck up the courage, or perhaps have a pint of Courage first! By the way, didn't realise you were were just a kid - thought you were about my age!
Nah Im just a whippersnapper really! In my prime as I like to say.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.