My horse

[SimplyEuphoric]

I took this shot a while ago, but just now got to finish fixing it up a little. I'm still not happy with his coat color, but I'll settle.

It took a lot of photoshopping to get him white, lets just say that he did this before I took this picture:

 

[tirediron]

Wouldn't it have been easier just to photoshop him all brown?

 

[SimplyEuphoric]

hahah, probably, thank god for photoshop because its SO hard to keep his white WHITE.

 

[Overread]

hmm I wonder what you did in editing - something about his whites looks off to me - it could be that they are a touch overexposed.
Also did you try a levels edit we well>

 

[SimplyEuphoric]

The white on his face is a bit overexposed now that you mention it. I didn't color that in at all, just his body. For his body it "lassoed' it (paint shop pro 9) and colored it in white with a low opacity.

I had to brighten the photo because the lighting just wasn't right in the original photo. Lets see if I can dig it up..

Do you think I added too much fill flash?

 

[Overread]

When I shoot in the day with the sun I set my camer to underexpose by about 1 stop - either setting shutterspeed to underexpose to -1 in manual or setting exposure compensation to -1 in aperture and shutter priority modes. I also set flash compensation to -1 as well (though I only have the popup flash). I find that these settings help to preserve whites in a shot and not overexpose them - you can brighten a shot up, but you can't darken an ovexposed white as the detail is often not present in the shot to restore to (some people do have luck with this, but its not a garentee and it also takes a big amount of fiddling with to get right)

I see what you mean about his whites staying white, though I think his nose looks fine, the post though is showing more overexposure to me. Also I think you might have gone overboard with his side whites a little, to me they look unnatural, just a little to vibrant a white. You could try selecting the area and using a brush set to a lower intensity - say 30% or less - and then brush over in layers so that you don't go too far

 

[SimplyEuphoric]

Thanks for the advice. I currently don't own a DSLR camera (but I am wanting one). All I have is a very older version of the sony cybershot, so my only options for lighting is flash or no flash. (And night shot)

I've been exploring my other options and saving up for a nicer camera that I can grow into as oppose to grow out of. Any suggestions for one? I was thinking about the Canon Rebel XT or XTI (I heard though, that the XTi is a dissapointing upgrade from the XT)

 

[Overread]

XTi - the 400D in UK terms - Is the camera I use and its a good working camera

The XT is alot a good camera, it handles noise better than the TXi, but its also an 8mp camera, so shots are a little smaller in size.

One the whole though I don't think there is much between the two and many of the complaints you have read might have been from people saying that its not worth upgrading from XT to XTi which is right - there is not a huge difference.

As for the new XTs (I think) or 450D its not a good choice by my view. They boosted mega pixels yet again, so noise is even worse than before (though it should be noted that this series of cameras handles noise very well overall) but also the larger file size means that you can only get 1.5fps (frames per second) whilst the other 2 have 3fps - much better for moving subjects like wildlife and horses

 

[SimplyEuphoric]

thank you for the information (yet again!!). Personally, I don't want to spend the extra $100 or so on the XTi for just a few different features that don't matter to me. Photography is fun for me, but not my job (although i do sell a few items with my photographs on it- stationary, post cards, etc. to other horse people like me).

I think that the XT (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=3626648) -the one with the 3fps - is the best option for me.

 

[Overread]

you might not be pro but that is no excuse not to spend
One thing I would strongly suggest is once you have your feet with the XT and its kit lens got out and spend a good amount on getting a pro level lens - something with an L in it from canon ;
I say this as its the lens on an SLR (or DSLR) that really makes the difference between shots and the budget lenses whilst being ok tend to underperform to what people expect to come from a several $100 camera. Not to say that they are bad, but don't limit yourself to them, put a little aside when you can and save up - its well worth it