Yeah, I lightened too much.
Didn't know what to expect here.
Seems that MOST pix here are too dark, didn't know why so lightened a bit much.
Thanks, like your version much better.
BTW, I am a tech.
I haven't got a creative bone in my body.
Well I don't know about realistic, but I have to say, it looks much better than the first one. The first one just looks ... I dunno, I guess noisy. I really think your monitor is the key Homer. Not saying mine is the best, but I get the feeling we are looking at totally different pictures.
Post the original from the camera without lightening it.
It is probably your monitor then. Everything in the darker values is looking like black (you can't see the detail, but it is there).
You can adjust your contrast and brightness controls until these photos we posted look about right, and see if you are running 24bit/true color/ or"millions" of colors (all the same thing). That could be part of the problem.
The value settings are called "gamma" on your monitor (the temperature of the picture and the range and setting of values from light to dark). There may be a shareware or freeware utility for the PC or something in your control panels for your Video display that you can adjust (some Video cards provide those adjustments right in the control panel).
I am on a Mac, which have a lighter settings by default, but I adjust it to PC-like gamma for most of my work (and most of the world).
Yeah Copper I have been all thru that with other sites. Some want it lighter some want it darker.
No I cannot set brite and contrast and see those things.
Take Gamma for instance, some say 1.8 for a PC and 2.2 for a Mac, and then the argument starts. Then you have the guys who want 9500 degrees Kelvin. Others say if you get RGB to 0,0,0 on black you will be alright, etc.
If you ever want to see that there is NO "standard" just do a google on Gamma someday. Well actually the problems is there are several standards and many intrepretations of how to get there.
I finally did the Poor mans calibration.
I loaded up the Printer with Kodak paper and sent a pix, unmodified, out of the camera to the printer and set the monitor as close as I could to the resulting print.
Then there is the Photographer vs Artist arguement.
In point of fact, everybody sees things differently.
When people argue that statement, and they will, it is time to move on.
anyway, here is the first pix fom the camera with the following changes.
Resampled to 640/480 at 80% Quality (read compression) .
These guys are gonna love it. I think it is too dark.
I'm gonna find a copper murano I saw in the gallery. I think it is a dynomite pix. It will be interestingto see what others thinks.......
Yeah, gamma comes in handy in many games. I am using the kodak Colorific correction (put this card on your screen and adjust following the procedure) on a Viewsonic VG150 flat panel through an NVidia GeForce 3 Asus V8200 Deluxe at 32 bit color depth.
Enforcer is probably right. You must have problems with your monitor. After adjusting your image I can see all the details in shadow and bright areas. Just right. Also the contrast and brightness is right for me. The picture you posted originally is washed out. I will try to show you histogram tomorrow. Hope it will explain better what I mean.
wow! just saw your last photo. Is brilliant. You can see all the details in bot shadow and bright areas. That is how you check correct exposure and right tonal range (I happen to be an amateur photographer since middle 60's!).
If you want to have proof just print both photos and we will see.
Well it looks like I can't replace the original Pix without deleting the post......which would delete the whole thread which i think would be a shame. It could be of some use to someone else.
hey! Do you know how may pix I have on my system that are completely worthless! Luckily I have either the originals on the system or a backup on CDR.
So I was thinking I would take 6 months or so and ...............