Reading mode: Light Dark

Who REALLY wants to test PhaseOne ?

Go to last post
Stephen Eastwood said:
you tell me its more of a preference thing
Click to expand...
The stage lighting is throwing the facial colorations. Here's my version. I did it by hand in Photoshop 7.0.1, curves, seperate color channels.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1147197

To my eyes the coloration of the guitars, jackets and pants are natural but the facial coloration has a bluish cast/quality to it.

Now the person preference question. What's real and what's desirable is up to the opinion of the viewer's tastes:-)

How'd I do?
 
These all certainly look better (IMO) than what comes out of the 1D's AWB.

However, they don't look "right" at all.

The guy in the back (the part of him you can see, anyway) looks naturally lit, leaving the guy in front (the subject) looking too blue.

Did I mention I HATE this venue's lighting? ;)
Thomas Gardner said:
To my eyes the coloration of the guitars, jackets and pants are
natural but the facial coloration has a bluish cast/quality to it.

Now the person preference question. What's real and what's
desirable is up to the opinion of the viewer's tastes:-)

How'd I do?
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
retouching half naked women shots from this past week :)

We should have more of these challenges to work on its very stress reducing for me, better then the same old retouching.

Stephen


DavidP said:
Neat shot.
Stephen Eastwood said:
1600 iso f3.5 0.8 sec handheld at 35mm, over my head, blacklights
in the room lighting up a glowstick at the end of the strings What
color temp are blacklights anyway?
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Click to expand...
--
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.nyphotographics.com
 
DavidP said:
However, they don't look "right" at all.

The guy in the back (the part of him you can see, anyway) looks
naturally lit, leaving the guy in front (the subject) looking too
blue.

Did I mention I HATE this venue's lighting? ;)
Thomas Gardner said:
To my eyes the coloration of the guitars, jackets and pants are
natural but the facial coloration has a bluish cast/quality to it.

Now the person preference question. What's real and what's
desirable is up to the opinion of the viewer's tastes:-)

How'd I do?
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Click to expand...
--
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.nyphotographics.com
 
I'd shoot them for free, then CHARGE OUT THE WAZOO for the re-touching services. LOL.
Stephen Eastwood said:
retouching half naked women shots from this past week :)

We should have more of these challenges to work on its very stress
reducing for me, better then the same old retouching.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
Well, I used to when I had my Olympus IS-3 (lens was only f/5.6).

I never liked the look.

For this venue (sitting this close), I could use a flash with a diffuser on it. The flash gets a bit distracting, though.

Stephen Eastwood wrote:
Re: ever use a flash? (NT)

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
DavidP said:
These all certainly look better (IMO) than what comes out of the
1D's AWB.

However, they don't look "right" at all.

The guy in the back (the part of him you can see, anyway) looks
naturally lit, leaving the guy in front (the subject) looking too
blue.

Did I mention I HATE this venue's lighting? ;)
Click to expand...
Is that the part where you mentioned something about ripping someone's gels out:-)

If you look at the top part of the main figure head, leftside as you're facing the performer, you'll see a purple highlight. If you look at the left side of the jacket, as you face the performer, you have a blue light. Everything on the leftside is designed to shift the light to the blues. Tungsten light will shift you in the opposite direction towards the yellows and the ambers.

Soooooo, your now left with personal preferences of what you want the image to look like but with all the mixed colors, there's not a snowball's chance of getting things perfect.

Not being there, I haven't a clue which way to go, so I went with the lower two thirds of the image and let the lights dictate the upper third. There's always masking the area that's important and doing some curves work to your tastes and letting the area outside the mask fall where it may:-)
 
Yeah, I think that's the thing I mentioned. ;)

Actuallly, he's a nice guy. He's even asked me what colors would work better. (I hate to say "no gels" -- LOL).

I think the simplest thing is just to punt and go with black/white or sepia. Hehe.

I'm messing around with these a bit just to learn a few things, and primarily because of the songwriters expressed an interest in maybe getting some 4x6's or 8x10's.
Thomas Gardner said:
Is that the part where you mentioned something about ripping
someone's gels out:-)

If you look at the top part of the main figure head, leftside as
you're facing the performer, you'll see a purple highlight. If you
look at the left side of the jacket, as you face the performer, you
have a blue light. Everything on the leftside is designed to shift
the light to the blues. Tungsten light will shift you in the
opposite direction towards the yellows and the ambers.

Soooooo, your now left with personal preferences of what you want
the image to look like but with all the mixed colors, there's not a
snowball's chance of getting things perfect.

Not being there, I haven't a clue which way to go, so I went with
the lower two thirds of the image and let the lights dictate the
upper third. There's always masking the area that's important and
doing some curves work to your tastes and letting the area outside
the mask fall where it may:-)
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
Stephen,

I don't have the software installed, but see if you can remove the registry entries... this usually work for me.

Regards,
Bernie
Stephen Eastwood said:
DigitalDreamland said:
AFIK the trail was out today so your trial cant be expired already ?
Try and remove it and reinstall it to a different folder or
something...
(stuff like that always happens to me btw, but this time i've been
lucky).
Stephen Eastwood said:

DavidP said:
I've got blown Reds and Greens as it is. (PS -- I dialed in -2/3
EV on the camera).
DigitalDreamland said:
Can you spell terrible... ISO 1600 and 1 stops under...
I took this Hellraiser for a ride in the Phaseone DLR software and
the RIC2 ..
no sh*t ... the difference is amazing... the DSLR totally eliminates
the bad colors in the channels.

Sharpening settings in the DSLR: Soft sharpening and threshold 21
amount 250.

Really bad... but usable after the PhaseOne has done its job.

A hand job in PS will probably take ages...
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Click to expand...
--
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.nyphotographics.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.nyphotographics.com
Click to expand...
 
Stephen Eastwood said:
retouching half naked women shots from this past week :)
Click to expand...
Obligatory question: Did you use a readilly available action for this, or perform some specific PhotoShop magic manually?

I tried an action that someone else posted a link to, but it left a visible halo surrounding the ladies, and wasn't quite up to par as far as I'm concerned.

BTW: Aren't soft lens filters supposed to help?

--
Rune, http://runesbike.com/
 
A canned action would never do a good realistic job as it cannot determine what is skin and what is not. This is a 3-5 minute PS job but I charge about 45minutes worth

heres an even better shot if you want to really see them larger and as a rioll over click the links below



links to larger rollovers you have to put the mouse over the larger shot and let it load may take a minute on a slower connection
http://www.nyphotographics.com/retouching/sharon.htm
http://www.nyphotographics.com/retouching/sharon.htm

Soft focus filters do help but you lose sharpness allover It drives me insane when the eyes are not sharp, so I do not use them but have always heard wonderful things about a Nikon soft 1 and have normally made my own with a UV and variable amounts of hairspray.

This model is not a beauty model she is in another modeling field altogether and doing well in that.
Rune Moberg said:
Stephen Eastwood said:
retouching half naked women shots from this past week :)
Click to expand...
Obligatory question: Did you use a readilly available action for
this, or perform some specific PhotoShop magic manually?

I tried an action that someone else posted a link to, but it left a
visible halo surrounding the ladies, and wasn't quite up to par as
far as I'm concerned.

BTW: Aren't soft lens filters supposed to help?

--
Rune, http://runesbike.com/
Click to expand...
--
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.nyphotographics.com
 
I blew up a crop to the equivalent of about 35x50" print, having never been through neat image, I placed up the crop on my server download it and use the embedded colorspace Adobe rgb its a 800K jpg that should open to be a face that can print at 29megs or 9.3 x12.3 at 300dpi and you tell me what film could do this at 1600 you may see some jpg artifacts as it has been jpged twice, but even still thats not noticable.

Love to hear your opinion

Stephen
http://www.nyphotographics.com/dpreview/d_pennybaker50inch.jpg
DavidP said:
Stephen Eastwood said:
make you a poster sized file for the songwrite ;)
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Click to expand...
--
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.nyphotographics.com
 
Stephen Eastwood said:
retouching half naked women shots from this past week :)

We should have more of these challenges to work on its very stress
reducing for me, better then the same old retouching.
Click to expand...
Stephen, I feel your pain....well maybe not exactly....actually not even close ;)) You are incredibly talented, and the luckiest son of a gun (along with Paul Pope). Keep up the great work, you are an inspiration to many here.

Chris
 
Try this one:

http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net/TheBand/joe.htm

I blew this one up myself in Photoshop (it's only at 240 ppi here for 8x10 -- I blew it up to 300 ppi for 24x36).

When I tried doing it in Photoshop using Stair Interpolation, I got really strange artifacts in the shirt (very easily seen when viewed at 200%). These all went away when I just did a single bicubic upsizing.

Curious to see what your action does.
Stephen Eastwood said:
I blew up a crop to the equivalent of about 35x50" print, having
never been through neat image, I placed up the crop on my server
download it and use the embedded colorspace Adobe rgb its a 800K
jpg that should open to be a face that can print at 29megs or 9.3
x12.3 at 300dpi and you tell me what film could do this at 1600
you may see some jpg artifacts as it has been jpged twice, but even
still thats not noticable.

Love to hear your opinion

Stephen
http://www.nyphotographics.com/dpreview/d_pennybaker50inch.jpg
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
When I open the image from the URL, it seems to actually contain two images, one very small (168x112) with lots of pixelization and the other one is about half the size of the cleaned-up repost - and has much less detail.

The "main" image I see is 288x192 pixels (yes, rotated 90 degrees). The reposted image is 400x601 and correspondingly appears to have much more detail. What I downloaded from the original post appears like a highly-compressed jpeg when I look at it.

What am I seeing here? Does this software actually increase the detail of the final image? If so, then it IS quite remarkable.
 
The small file you're seeing is the embedded JPG file in the RAW file.

You've got to convert the RAW tif file using some sort of software to get the full-sized image.

I don't think anybody's posted the results full-sized, though. They've shown reduced images for space/speed considerations.
DBevis said:
When I open the image from the URL, it seems to actually contain
two images, one very small (168x112) with lots of pixelization
and the other one is about half the size of the cleaned-up repost -
and has much less detail.

The "main" image I see is 288x192 pixels (yes, rotated 90 degrees).
The reposted image is 400x601 and correspondingly appears to have
much more detail. What I downloaded from the original post appears
like a highly-compressed jpeg when I look at it.

What am I seeing here? Does this software actually increase the
detail of the final image? If so, then it IS quite remarkable.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top