What's new

Can someone please please fix this photo for me?

Thank you EVERYONE they all look great! But Dom wins (Although Charlie you were a very very close second)! No you won't be getting a 300mm and all that but here is your cookie! If we could NOT CC this cookie photo, it would be much appreciated LOL!

IMG_0879.jpg

That's not a cookie!




THESE:

D7K_9506.jpg



are cookies!
 
The orange color cast in the background is caused by incandescent/tungsten lighting (about 3000°K color temperature), but the ornament is lit by the flash (about 5500°K color temperature) which essentially has the same color temperature as sunlight.

in other words the photo was made using 'mixed lighting' (multiple light sources having differing color temperatures), a situation experienced photographers try to avoid.

The way an experienced photographer would avoid the situation is by putting a full CTO gel in front of the flash to make the light from the flash unit the same color temperaure as the background incandescent/tungsten lighting, and then setting the white balance to tungsten/incandescent on the camera.
 
You're not even going to send it to me?! :x

I feel jipped!:thumbdown:

Kidding kidding. My pleasure to help someone out. I suggest downloading Adobe's photoshop cs5.5 free trial. You can familiarize yourself with their software for a month, and then decide if its worth your money.

Edit: I realise how I just sounded like a salesman for adobe.

You could also try Gimp, it's free software you can download and it seems to have a lot of the same tools as Photoshop.
 
Thank you EVERYONE they all look great! But Dom wins (Although Charlie you were a very very close second)! No you won't be getting a 300mm and all that but here is your cookie! If we could NOT CC this cookie photo, it would be much appreciated LOL!

IMG_0879.jpg

That's not a cookie!




THESE:

D7K_9506.jpg



are cookies!


*pffft*

Those aren't cookies.


These are!

Cookies2.jpg
 
I like buckster's processing.
 
Download GIMP. It's free and a very powerful editing program.
 
I actually thought Sparky's edit was the only one that didn't look "processed". To me it was quite effective, and looked natural as well. Not as sharp as the others, but I don't think the original had enough data in it to sharpen effectively. The others all show digital artifacts, as a result of too much sharpening on the overexposed areas, or just pushing a jpg too far and getting banding/noise.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top Bottom