Reading mode: Light Dark

"Screen your Curves" SUPER TIP! (pics)

Go to last post
i am not really sure off all the differences and limitation of Elements as i have not even installed in on my machine....

give me a lil time i will look into it for you and do some exercises from the book in Elements.

--DT
AmirBD said:
Hi Trinity,

Very good post-processing!!!

Before I rush to buy the book, can you comment about it's relevance
to Adobe Elements 2.0 (I do not have, nor will I have anytime soon,
Adobe CS).

Thanks,

Amir
Click to expand...
--
taking life one frame at a time...
 
Trinity;

First off thank you very much for the sharing of the tip. I have the book that you are talking about but never got into that deeply yet. BUT because of you and this post it has caused me to go and dig it out and start reading it again. Thank you for that.

Now, I gotta say that I am so sick of some of the pompus a holes that reside on this website. PEOPLE get a life.

Steve Walsh : You called Trinity's attitude boorish. Your welcome to your opinion. So am I, I find you totally BOORISH. That's my opinion.

Here you have somebody trying to share with others and what do you get? Someone else has to through in composition. Can't you just say thanks and move on. Or better yet not say anything?

Then you got Boo: Hey jump down off your high and mighty soapbox and take your pompus attitude and stick it. I mean for gods sake can;t you people just take something for what it is and leave it at that? You people kill me sometimes.

The sad thing is this. This is how society is degrading everyday. I see it more and more out in the real world too. Everybody has to be in a power stuggle. I guess in closing I say get a freaking life people and be happy with yourselves.

Thank you trinity for the post.

Also if anyone wants to continue this in email feel free.
--
'Mo
 
i truly appreciate your comment here. i was starting to fear that there were not many decent people left on these forums. i am glad that something that i did helped to respark your interest in the book... i am sure that Scott Kelby would be happy to hear of this as well. this is what it is all about.... sharing information and helping others. i get so many good tips from this forum that i just had to find SOMETHING to give back to the forum as well as the author of the book.

thanks for your comments "mr. mo"

--DT
Mohawk said:
Trinity;

First off thank you very much for the sharing of the tip. I have
the book that you are talking about but never got into that deeply
yet. BUT because of you and this post it has caused me to go and
dig it out and start reading it again. Thank you for that.

Now, I gotta say that I am so sick of some of the pompus a holes
that reside on this website. PEOPLE get a life.

Steve Walsh : You called Trinity's attitude boorish. Your welcome
to your opinion. So am I, I find you totally BOORISH. That's my
opinion.

Here you have somebody trying to share with others and what do you
get? Someone else has to through in composition. Can't you just say
thanks and move on. Or better yet not say anything?

Then you got Boo: Hey jump down off your high and mighty soapbox
and take your pompus attitude and stick it. I mean for gods sake
can;t you people just take something for what it is and leave it at
that? You people kill me sometimes.

The sad thing is this. This is how society is degrading everyday. I
see it more and more out in the real world too. Everybody has to be
in a power stuggle. I guess in closing I say get a freaking life
people and be happy with yourselves.

Thank you trinity for the post.

Also if anyone wants to continue this in email feel free.
--
'Mo
Click to expand...
--
taking life one frame at a time...
 
To me she looks a little to plasticy in that photo. I think portraits should look as natural as possible without looking touched up. Sorry for the compression but you can only do so much with an already compressed photo.


DigitalTrinity said:
this is my opportunity to sing the praises of "The Photoshop Book
for Digital Photographers."
First i must say that i am using photoshop CS and this book is
still very usable even though its written for version 7.

the book outlines methods for fixing overexposed and underexposed
photos as well as using curves for correction.

for overexposed you duplicate the photo on another layer and change
the blend mode to "Multiply" and keep doing this till your hearts
delight and change the opacity of the new layers to fit your likings

for underexposed photos duplicate layer but change the blend mode
to screen and the image instantly brightens up... once again apply
this and change opacity to fit your needs.

everyone knows the joy of curves (or at least you should!!) but
curves are so volitile and the smallest twitch can make a person in
your photo look like they were running around outside after the
ozone layer had totally depleted and a nuclear bomb had just
dropped. Screening and mulitiplying can be an easy and similarly
effective solution. BUT combining both methods can make a throw
away photo into a serious keeper

Take this photo for example (nice little receptionist -- she wanted
to smile for camera... i think she was attracted the big long lens
HAHA!! .... I digress............):
its a classic case of forgetting to switch white balance!! (shes
still cute huh?)



i saw this one and thought ugh!!! theres nothing that can save
this... ESPECIALLY since i didnt shoot in RAW!!! BUT WAIT!!

after a few screening layers
then merge
then setting curves with the eyedroppers (darks, mids, and
highlights) DONT TOUCH THE ACTUAL CURVE!
a bit of skin softening and cosmetic adjustments..... and VOILA!!!!
an instant deletion turned glamour girl!!



cases in point...
screening and multiply are perfect alternatives for the person that
has outgrown brightness/contrast but doesnt want to manipulate
points while using curves. use those little eyedroppers they can
save you from disaster!

OH one more revelation came from this photo --- the white balance
was obviously way off which in many cases means a nightmarish
blueish/purpleish tint over your photo (see first example above).
if shot in raw this would have been a sinch to rescue but those of
us who would rather be able to store 80 photos as opposed to 11
photos on one memory card it seems that a mistaken white balance
setting can be rescued as well with some screening and curves:)

i hope this helps someone ....
get the photoshop book for digital photographers.... it will change
your post processing and make you feel like a "real" photographer
even if you are only taking photos of your aunt Ester with the wig
thats always falling off:)

--DigitalTrinity (hey my real name is Trinity THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!)

--
taking life one frame at a time...
Click to expand...
 
DigitalTrinity said:
did you go to high school? or college?? have you ever done a book
report or a research paper before???? then you went and shared
your knowledge of the subject with your teacher and/or classmates?
in that paper/report did you cite the author/name of the book?
this is the same thing.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't, not here under English law at least - Educational uses come under separate clauses under copyright law and the rights you have to use materials are treated very diferently.
DigitalTrinity said:
oh ... how many MP3s
do you have?
Click to expand...
None that are copies of recordings, I do however record web casts of live performances, which is illegal, but I not share them.
DigitalTrinity said:
how many cds have you "shared" with your
friends/family???
Click to expand...
None. I work jointly for a band and their record label and it would be a sackable offence under my contract and I actively make a public stand against music sharing as it is stealing and threatens my livelihood, so I practice what I preach. I do not share music.
DigitalTrinity said:
now in reference to the photo... the whole process was done in
about 3 mins tops.... just to prove a point that it can be done.
the shot was a simple snapshot taken off the cuff in the middle of
a dealership showroom. obviously not a studio portrait. must we
be so serious and critical??
Click to expand...
You were the one who made a lengthy post as a tutorial and gave the impression that you were very happy with your handiwork. Looking back at the OP, I can't see any references to it being a hasty example purely to make a point.
DigitalTrinity said:
take the tip, go get the book and do your own
experimenting...
Click to expand...
Not much point, I don't have PhotoShop.
DigitalTrinity said:
i will take some time and redo it just for you BOO.
Click to expand...
Don't bother on my account, I'm perfectly capable of doing my own retouching and have been doing so since I trained in it using an airbrush over 20 years ago.
DigitalTrinity said:
thanks for the tip.... OH! and PLEASE do NOT claim that you are the
first one to "add to that using soft light for adding contrast and
tonal range to flat photos" i know that you learned that from
SOMEWHERE!! at least i am not trying to take credit for something
not of my own. please...based on your own experiences my a**
Click to expand...
Is there any need to be so offensive and rude and to resort to shouting, especially the offensive and disrespectful manner in which you've written my name. I have no idea where I picked it up, but the vast majority of my techniques have been ascertained through sheer practice, I've been photoretouching with a PC since before the web was active here in the UK and I don't own any retouching books. So I can't say for certain where I established that particular technique over the years, I may well have picked it up from somewhere else - I believe my stated 'based on experience' would cover that.
DigitalTrinity said:
if you are going to come at me like that, at least come with some
substance to your arguement because i see that you have none....
Click to expand...
How do you ascertain that I have no substance to my argument, the web sites in my sig., contain several hundred images and are there as an example of my handiwork as both a photographer and as a digital manipulator, in order that people can view them and decide for themselves if my posting is justified and my advice and content worthy of merit. If you want substance I'm very happy to post my version of how that photo can be improved with as little effort and I would contend, rather better results. I am happy to oblige with whatever substance you'd cite as worthy.
DigitalTrinity said:
obviously there are people that enjoy good information.
Click to expand...
Indeed there are and I was adding to that by suggesting that subtlety is the key, especially with portaits. If you're going to post tutorials at least give a worthwhile overall picture - I don't believe your example was a good one to illustrate your point. I once saw a TV programme about special effects in the movies and this eposide was about creating weather on set. The expert they interviewed suggested that if he did his job well, no one would even see it, notice or even know he existed. If people noticed his work, he'd failed. Photo manipulation is just the same - if you can see it, you got it wrong.
DigitalTrinity said:
good day my friend....
Click to expand...
I don't believe we've ever met and your response does not earn you the right to be so familiar.

--
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music photos
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk/lowlight.html - available light live music tutorial
 
brandon ... thanks for the comment.... i should haev taken a bit more time with the photo... i think it is ok for the purpose of jus giving a tip though do you think? and its not a portrait... its a snapshot taken in the middle of a dealership showroom as she was asking me what i was taking pictures of and that she wanted to smile for the camera:)

its cool though ... i will do better next time:(

--DT
Brandon Mizar said:

DigitalTrinity said:
this is my opportunity to sing the praises of "The Photoshop Book
for Digital Photographers."
First i must say that i am using photoshop CS and this book is
still very usable even though its written for version 7.

the book outlines methods for fixing overexposed and underexposed
photos as well as using curves for correction.

for overexposed you duplicate the photo on another layer and change
the blend mode to "Multiply" and keep doing this till your hearts
delight and change the opacity of the new layers to fit your likings

for underexposed photos duplicate layer but change the blend mode
to screen and the image instantly brightens up... once again apply
this and change opacity to fit your needs.

everyone knows the joy of curves (or at least you should!!) but
curves are so volitile and the smallest twitch can make a person in
your photo look like they were running around outside after the
ozone layer had totally depleted and a nuclear bomb had just
dropped. Screening and mulitiplying can be an easy and similarly
effective solution. BUT combining both methods can make a throw
away photo into a serious keeper

Take this photo for example (nice little receptionist -- she wanted
to smile for camera... i think she was attracted the big long lens
HAHA!! .... I digress............):
its a classic case of forgetting to switch white balance!! (shes
still cute huh?)



i saw this one and thought ugh!!! theres nothing that can save
this... ESPECIALLY since i didnt shoot in RAW!!! BUT WAIT!!

after a few screening layers
then merge
then setting curves with the eyedroppers (darks, mids, and
highlights) DONT TOUCH THE ACTUAL CURVE!
a bit of skin softening and cosmetic adjustments..... and VOILA!!!!
an instant deletion turned glamour girl!!



cases in point...
screening and multiply are perfect alternatives for the person that
has outgrown brightness/contrast but doesnt want to manipulate
points while using curves. use those little eyedroppers they can
save you from disaster!

OH one more revelation came from this photo --- the white balance
was obviously way off which in many cases means a nightmarish
blueish/purpleish tint over your photo (see first example above).
if shot in raw this would have been a sinch to rescue but those of
us who would rather be able to store 80 photos as opposed to 11
photos on one memory card it seems that a mistaken white balance
setting can be rescued as well with some screening and curves:)

i hope this helps someone ....
get the photoshop book for digital photographers.... it will change
your post processing and make you feel like a "real" photographer
even if you are only taking photos of your aunt Ester with the wig
thats always falling off:)

--DigitalTrinity (hey my real name is Trinity THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!)

--
taking life one frame at a time...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
taking life one frame at a time...
 
DigitalTrinity said:
i truly appreciate your comment here. i was starting to fear that
there were not many decent people left on these forums.
Click to expand...
So violating the authors rights is the decent thing to do??
DigitalTrinity said:
Mohawk said:
Trinity;

First off thank you very much for the sharing of the tip. I have
the book that you are talking about but never got into that deeply
yet. BUT because of you and this post it has caused me to go and
dig it out and start reading it again. Thank you for that.

Now, I gotta say that I am so sick of some of the pompus a holes
that reside on this website. PEOPLE get a life.

Steve Walsh : You called Trinity's attitude boorish. Your welcome
to your opinion. So am I, I find you totally BOORISH. That's my
opinion.

Here you have somebody trying to share with others and what do you
get? Someone else has to through in composition. Can't you just say
thanks and move on. Or better yet not say anything?

Then you got Boo: Hey jump down off your high and mighty soapbox
and take your pompus attitude and stick it. I mean for gods sake
can;t you people just take something for what it is and leave it at
that? You people kill me sometimes.

The sad thing is this. This is how society is degrading everyday. I
see it more and more out in the real world too. Everybody has to be
in a power stuggle. I guess in closing I say get a freaking life
people and be happy with yourselves.

Thank you trinity for the post.

Also if anyone wants to continue this in email feel free.
--
'Mo
Click to expand...
--
taking life one frame at a time...
Click to expand...
--



Regards,
Tom

http://clik.to/tomcee
Canon 300D FAQ: http://www.marius.org/fom-serve/cache/3.html
 
I know what you mean though. Scott Kelby is amazing. I learned of his book by reading these boards and now I have 5 books of his and have improved my Photoshop skills ten fold.
DigitalTrinity said:
its cool though ... i will do better next time:(

--DT
Brandon Mizar said:

DigitalTrinity said:
this is my opportunity to sing the praises of "The Photoshop Book
for Digital Photographers."
First i must say that i am using photoshop CS and this book is
still very usable even though its written for version 7.

the book outlines methods for fixing overexposed and underexposed
photos as well as using curves for correction.

for overexposed you duplicate the photo on another layer and change
the blend mode to "Multiply" and keep doing this till your hearts
delight and change the opacity of the new layers to fit your likings

for underexposed photos duplicate layer but change the blend mode
to screen and the image instantly brightens up... once again apply
this and change opacity to fit your needs.

everyone knows the joy of curves (or at least you should!!) but
curves are so volitile and the smallest twitch can make a person in
your photo look like they were running around outside after the
ozone layer had totally depleted and a nuclear bomb had just
dropped. Screening and mulitiplying can be an easy and similarly
effective solution. BUT combining both methods can make a throw
away photo into a serious keeper

Take this photo for example (nice little receptionist -- she wanted
to smile for camera... i think she was attracted the big long lens
HAHA!! .... I digress............):
its a classic case of forgetting to switch white balance!! (shes
still cute huh?)



i saw this one and thought ugh!!! theres nothing that can save
this... ESPECIALLY since i didnt shoot in RAW!!! BUT WAIT!!

after a few screening layers
then merge
then setting curves with the eyedroppers (darks, mids, and
highlights) DONT TOUCH THE ACTUAL CURVE!
a bit of skin softening and cosmetic adjustments..... and VOILA!!!!
an instant deletion turned glamour girl!!



cases in point...
screening and multiply are perfect alternatives for the person that
has outgrown brightness/contrast but doesnt want to manipulate
points while using curves. use those little eyedroppers they can
save you from disaster!

OH one more revelation came from this photo --- the white balance
was obviously way off which in many cases means a nightmarish
blueish/purpleish tint over your photo (see first example above).
if shot in raw this would have been a sinch to rescue but those of
us who would rather be able to store 80 photos as opposed to 11
photos on one memory card it seems that a mistaken white balance
setting can be rescued as well with some screening and curves:)

i hope this helps someone ....
get the photoshop book for digital photographers.... it will change
your post processing and make you feel like a "real" photographer
even if you are only taking photos of your aunt Ester with the wig
thats always falling off:)

--DigitalTrinity (hey my real name is Trinity THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!)

--
taking life one frame at a time...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
taking life one frame at a time...
Click to expand...
 
eay way to whiten teeth is take your paintbrush in "color" mode. set the opacity of the brush down to 50% (or whatever looks most realistic to you) then color cover the teeth. just same an offwhite 'teeth-like' color... I usually use a pearl type color.
Chris MacClellan said:
Mac
voorheez said:
Scott
DigitalTrinity said:
this is my opportunity to sing the praises of "The Photoshop Book
for Digital Photographers."
First i must say that i am using photoshop CS and this book is
still very usable even though its written for version 7.

the book outlines methods for fixing overexposed and underexposed
photos as well as using curves for correction.

for overexposed you duplicate the photo on another layer and change
the blend mode to "Multiply" and keep doing this till your hearts
delight and change the opacity of the new layers to fit your likings

for underexposed photos duplicate layer but change the blend mode
to screen and the image instantly brightens up... once again apply
this and change opacity to fit your needs.

everyone knows the joy of curves (or at least you should!!) but
curves are so volitile and the smallest twitch can make a person in
your photo look like they were running around outside after the
ozone layer had totally depleted and a nuclear bomb had just
dropped. Screening and mulitiplying can be an easy and similarly
effective solution. BUT combining both methods can make a throw
away photo into a serious keeper

Take this photo for example (nice little receptionist -- she wanted
to smile for camera... i think she was attracted the big long lens
HAHA!! .... I digress............):
its a classic case of forgetting to switch white balance!! (shes
still cute huh?)



i saw this one and thought ugh!!! theres nothing that can save
this... ESPECIALLY since i didnt shoot in RAW!!! BUT WAIT!!

after a few screening layers
then merge
then setting curves with the eyedroppers (darks, mids, and
highlights) DONT TOUCH THE ACTUAL CURVE!
a bit of skin softening and cosmetic adjustments..... and VOILA!!!!
an instant deletion turned glamour girl!!



cases in point...
screening and multiply are perfect alternatives for the person that
has outgrown brightness/contrast but doesnt want to manipulate
points while using curves. use those little eyedroppers they can
save you from disaster!

OH one more revelation came from this photo --- the white balance
was obviously way off which in many cases means a nightmarish
blueish/purpleish tint over your photo (see first example above).
if shot in raw this would have been a sinch to rescue but those of
us who would rather be able to store 80 photos as opposed to 11
photos on one memory card it seems that a mistaken white balance
setting can be rescued as well with some screening and curves:)

i hope this helps someone ....
get the photoshop book for digital photographers.... it will change
your post processing and make you feel like a "real" photographer
even if you are only taking photos of your aunt Ester with the wig
thats always falling off:)

--DigitalTrinity (hey my real name is Trinity THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!)

--
taking life one frame at a time...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
bretton lewis
xhalation.com
 
Boo wrote:
I've been photoretouching with a PC since
before the web was active here in the UK

I say again POMPUS @ hole.

I guess next time Trinity that you want to post something, please make sure you send it to Pompus ..oh sorry I mean Boo. So it will be sure to pass his stringent guidelines for what is right and what should be posted. I mean come on he is the know it all when it comes to photography.

Why can't you idiots just take the post for what it was. Sharing something with some one. I mean you could tell Trinity was happy to give something back. Actually I'm done. There is no getting through to some people.

--
'Mo
 
Mohawk said:
Now, I gotta say that I am so sick of some of the pompus a holes
that reside on this website. PEOPLE get a life.
Click to expand...
[snip]
Mohawk said:
Then you got Boo: Hey jump down off your high and mighty soapbox
and take your pompus attitude and stick it. I mean for gods sake
can;t you people just take something for what it is and leave it at
that? You people kill me sometimes.
Click to expand...
I've just re-read my post and don't think it in any way deserves that response, yours is far more offensive than anything I said - you made several direct personal insults. I did no such thing. As I posted elsewhere in the thread, my portfolios are clearly illustrated for you to view and decide if my work qualifies me to comment. I believe it does and if you view my posting history you will also see how much time I spend in helping people here and in the Fuji Talk Forum in the year or so I've been active, over a large number of posts. I don't however enjoy the attitude and rudeness of many of the posters in the 300D forum, so post much less here, of which you've just provided a pefect example of what you were claiming to hate so much yourself.

Whilst the technique outlined (albeit lifted from elsewhere) is an interesting and worthwhile one to pass on, so is my comment that subtlety is vital in producing an acceptable result, especially so with portraits. If the retouching and manipulation is visible, which it clearly was in the posted 'after' example, then it hasn't been as successful as it might have been - I believe it could have been done rather better and I'll behappy to have a go myself and provide a better example - I'm very happy to stand and be counted. I was merely adding to the discussion by passing on another tip. Look at the faces on the front covers of any newsstand glossy womens' magazines and you will not be able to tell that they've been retouched and I'd be prepared to bet that even with a studio set up shot, there would be a considerable amount.

As a woman, I found the OP's comments full of sexual innuendo about his subject to be inappropriate here and was merely sticking up for the lady in question's right to be treated with a little more respect in public. I'm sorry that you felt it necessary to be so pesonally rude towards me in the circumstances. I don't believe I've ever done so to yourself, or anyone else here, or in Fuji Talk.

--
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music photos
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk/lowlight.html - available light live music tutorial
 
ok then Boo,

i am glad that you are the model citizen and spokes person for the music industry. keep practicing what you preach. and i am sorry that i am not a master like you ......... seems to me like alot of people found the post useful. sure its obviously a touched up photo but does that make the tip any less valid?? i do believe that its an improvement on the first photo... touched up or not.

this argument could continue... but i would rather not. until people start posting in this thread that the tip was totally useless to them or "thanks for the tip now i dont have to go and get the book" then you can just keep your mouth shut. matter of fact... why dont you look at some of the other posts??? Sandmans, Brandon M's second post, and many others as the allude to how the tips on here lead them to buy the book and many others of Scott Kelbys... do you think that Scott wants a lawsuit for that??

by the way what equipment are you using for your concerts? many of the pics are blurry even after obvious attempts to apply sharpening (what happened to "if its noticable then its wrong"). or were you trying to "capture the motion" in the shots as well. just an honest question... you have some pretty good shots in your gallery but if you are going to practice what you preach then redo some of those photos as they some of them look over sharpened, too dark, out of focus, "touched up", and blurry....... lets be for real now:) good day

--DT

--
taking life one frame at a time...
 
bretton said:
Chris MacClellan said:
Mac
voorheez said:
Scott
DigitalTrinity said:
this is my opportunity to sing the praises of "The Photoshop Book
for Digital Photographers."
First i must say that i am using photoshop CS and this book is
still very usable even though its written for version 7.

the book outlines methods for fixing overexposed and underexposed
photos as well as using curves for correction.

for overexposed you duplicate the photo on another layer and change
the blend mode to "Multiply" and keep doing this till your hearts
delight and change the opacity of the new layers to fit your likings

for underexposed photos duplicate layer but change the blend mode
to screen and the image instantly brightens up... once again apply
this and change opacity to fit your needs.

everyone knows the joy of curves (or at least you should!!) but
curves are so volitile and the smallest twitch can make a person in
your photo look like they were running around outside after the
ozone layer had totally depleted and a nuclear bomb had just
dropped. Screening and mulitiplying can be an easy and similarly
effective solution. BUT combining both methods can make a throw
away photo into a serious keeper

Take this photo for example (nice little receptionist -- she wanted
to smile for camera... i think she was attracted the big long lens
HAHA!! .... I digress............):
its a classic case of forgetting to switch white balance!! (shes
still cute huh?)



i saw this one and thought ugh!!! theres nothing that can save
this... ESPECIALLY since i didnt shoot in RAW!!! BUT WAIT!!

after a few screening layers
then merge
then setting curves with the eyedroppers (darks, mids, and
highlights) DONT TOUCH THE ACTUAL CURVE!
a bit of skin softening and cosmetic adjustments..... and VOILA!!!!
an instant deletion turned glamour girl!!



cases in point...
screening and multiply are perfect alternatives for the person that
has outgrown brightness/contrast but doesnt want to manipulate
points while using curves. use those little eyedroppers they can
save you from disaster!

OH one more revelation came from this photo --- the white balance
was obviously way off which in many cases means a nightmarish
blueish/purpleish tint over your photo (see first example above).
if shot in raw this would have been a sinch to rescue but those of
us who would rather be able to store 80 photos as opposed to 11
photos on one memory card it seems that a mistaken white balance
setting can be rescued as well with some screening and curves:)

i hope this helps someone ....
get the photoshop book for digital photographers.... it will change
your post processing and make you feel like a "real" photographer
even if you are only taking photos of your aunt Ester with the wig
thats always falling off:)

--DigitalTrinity (hey my real name is Trinity THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!)

--
taking life one frame at a time...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
bretton lewis
xhalation.com
Click to expand...
--
taking life one frame at a time...
 
Visit the link below, click on Dodging & Burning > Blends & Curves. Then scroll to the bottom.

Personally, I prefer curves to screen/multiply. More control. And, if you want to lessen the effect, as the original poster suggests, reduce opacity on the Curves layer.

--
Thomas Niemann
Photoshop for Photographers
http://epaperpress.com/psphoto
 
DigitalTrinity said:
the book outlines methods for fixing overexposed and underexposed
photos as well as using curves for correction.

for overexposed you duplicate the photo on another layer and change
the blend mode to "Multiply" and keep doing this till your hearts
delight and change the opacity of the new layers to fit your likings
Click to expand...
Hate to be an ol' fart, but this can also easily destroy any detail in the shadows if done to excess, blocking up the shadows. In reverse, it may lead to blowing out whites and highlight detail.

I would suggest using a levels correction instead of this to retain detail without guessing -- and to correct color at the same time. See basic color correction here:

http://www.ps6.com/Tutorials/select.html

--
Richard Lynch
[email protected]
http://hiddenelements.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0782141781/newwriting/
 
Mohawk said:
Boo wrote:
I've been photoretouching with a PC since
before the web was active here in the UK
Click to expand...
Fact, I trained in physical photoretouching starting in 1979 (using an airbrush, emulsion dyes, retouching pencils etc.) and first started work on a PC doing the same type of work with a mouse in 1995. I'm merely expalining my pedigree for commenting.
Mohawk said:
I say again POMPUS @ hole.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you think earns you the right to be so personally offensive and abusive, have I done the same to you? I don't believe I have ever been anything other than polite to everyone here.
Mohawk said:
I guess next time Trinity that you want to post something, please
make sure you send it to Pompus ..oh sorry I mean Boo. So it will
be sure to pass his stringent guidelines for what is right and what
should be posted. I mean come on he is the know it all when it
comes to photography.
Click to expand...
If you'd actually spent a few minutes visiting either of my sites to see if my work qualified me to comment, you'd see that I make absolutely no secret that I'm a woman. I believe my work earns me the right to comment. What has earned you the right to be abusive and personally offensive towards me?
Mohawk said:
There is no getting through
to some people.
Click to expand...
So it would appear.

--
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music photos
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk/lowlight.html - available light live music tutorial
 
TomCee... you actually are right.

i understand what you are saying and technically you are correct. maybe i am violating Kelby's rights as an author. but tell me do you honestly think, looking at all of the other posts as they talk about how the tip helped them and caused them to go get the book and others of Kelbys, that i have malintent for the post? am i trying to draw business away from the book? youre right, the author has the right to choose who he wants to advertise and such. but isnt word of mouth better than any kind of advertising that you see on TV or in the news? dont you trust opinions from others that are involved in the same things that you are over some highly paid voice over man telling you that you should buy this item because you just have to have it?

I am in no way arguing with you TomCee as i feel that you pose a valid point. i just would think that you would understand the true intent here is to help others and sing the praises of a book that actually helps. have you ever told anyone about how well your car rides? or even how bad your car may drive? how good this burger is at McDonalds, how comfortable these shoes are, how good this CD is, how wonderful this book is..... im sure at least one or two of these have hit home with you. should everyone be sued for "advertising" a product/service by talking about it to their peers?

if you dont belive that i have given Kelby his due credit then i will start another thread dedicated to Scott Kelby and his books.

i hope you take this message in a good way.
your reply is indeed welcomed.

--DT
TomCee said:
DigitalTrinity said:
i truly appreciate your comment here. i was starting to fear that
there were not many decent people left on these forums.
Click to expand...
So violating the authors rights is the decent thing to do??
TomCee said:
Mohawk said:
Trinity;

First off thank you very much for the sharing of the tip. I have
the book that you are talking about but never got into that deeply
yet. BUT because of you and this post it has caused me to go and
dig it out and start reading it again. Thank you for that.

Now, I gotta say that I am so sick of some of the pompus a holes
that reside on this website. PEOPLE get a life.

Steve Walsh : You called Trinity's attitude boorish. Your welcome
to your opinion. So am I, I find you totally BOORISH. That's my
opinion.

Here you have somebody trying to share with others and what do you
get? Someone else has to through in composition. Can't you just say
thanks and move on. Or better yet not say anything?

Then you got Boo: Hey jump down off your high and mighty soapbox
and take your pompus attitude and stick it. I mean for gods sake
can;t you people just take something for what it is and leave it at
that? You people kill me sometimes.

The sad thing is this. This is how society is degrading everyday. I
see it more and more out in the real world too. Everybody has to be
in a power stuggle. I guess in closing I say get a freaking life
people and be happy with yourselves.

Thank you trinity for the post.

Also if anyone wants to continue this in email feel free.
--
'Mo
Click to expand...
--
taking life one frame at a time...
Click to expand...
--



Regards,
Tom

http://clik.to/tomcee
Canon 300D FAQ: http://www.marius.org/fom-serve/cache/3.html
Click to expand...
--
taking life one frame at a time...
 
And made a point of stating so in both the subject and body of the post. My criticism was brief and to the point, and I appreciate that DigitalTrinity acknowledged it in a respectul manner, too.

Your own response, though, was over the top, heavy on invective, and short on analysis. The first posting rule for dpreview is "Be civil," and I think you've ignored that.
Mohawk said:
Trinity;

First off thank you very much for the sharing of the tip. I have
the book that you are talking about but never got into that deeply
yet. BUT because of you and this post it has caused me to go and
dig it out and start reading it again. Thank you for that.

Now, I gotta say that I am so sick of some of the pompus a holes
that reside on this website. PEOPLE get a life.

Steve Walsh : You called Trinity's attitude boorish. Your welcome
to your opinion. So am I, I find you totally BOORISH. That's my
opinion.

Here you have somebody trying to share with others and what do you
get? Someone else has to through in composition. Can't you just say
thanks and move on. Or better yet not say anything?

Then you got Boo: Hey jump down off your high and mighty soapbox
and take your pompus attitude and stick it. I mean for gods sake
can;t you people just take something for what it is and leave it at
that? You people kill me sometimes.

The sad thing is this. This is how society is degrading everyday. I
see it more and more out in the real world too. Everybody has to be
in a power stuggle. I guess in closing I say get a freaking life
people and be happy with yourselves.

Thank you trinity for the post.

Also if anyone wants to continue this in email feel free.
--
'Mo
Click to expand...
 
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