Exposure question...

[clanthar]

With the original, there wasn't really any PP other than cropping because I'm really only worried about the exposure in this thread.

So your exposure was fine. The question then remains; how did the tonal range get so badly compressed? I suspect the camera image processor and that this photo was a camera produced JPEG. Camera image processors do this kind of damage frequently -- it's an easy fix using Levels in a good editor like Photoshop. http://photojoes.org/art275/lesson03/chapter01.html

Also, This one was taken in the shade on a fall day a month or so ago.... it's my understanding that this will sometimes put a bluish tint on things..... Its kind of a pain in the ass.

The sky is blue. When sunlight is striking a subject that sunlight dominates and the color is standard daylight. Otherwise, the sky is blue. Camera image processors can't white balance.

Take Care,
Joe

 

[sobolik]

It seems to me that any time I have a pic I really like, "photographers" will tell me it is slightly underexposed. Every time I see a pic that "photographers" say is perfectly exposed, I see it as slightly overexposed. Is this as simple as personal preference, or is it because I haven't acheived the elite "photographer" rank?

HA HA HA! The people paying cash money are your judges. If they are not paying you then you can safely consider such opinions as curious at best.

So you are saying it is better to have paying customers tell you your work is sub par? After they say that, I doubt they will remain a paying customer.. does that mean that their original opinion doesn't matter anymore?

Costly belief there sobo.....

I will take all the free advice I can get, what I do with said advice is up to me.

p!nK

You make one gigantic and false assumption that the paying customer agrees with the random forum opinion. A very flawed and bogus assumption to say the least. Which in a round about way verifies my claim that random forum opinions are not valuable compared to a paying customers.

 

[Stradawhovious]

You guys are both making the false assumption that I'm ever going to get a paying customer.

 

[Dominantly]

Hi,

Based on the example you provided:

The exposure is ok, but the photo is very flat -- the tonal distribution is compressed. This is an error and should be corrected in processing.

Did this photo come from the camera as a JPEG or did you process it from a RAW file?

Here's a correction: Do not think of what I did as altering the exposure; I altered the tonal distribution.

I also altered the color of the photo as the dog appeared too blue given my experience of similar dogs and the grass in the background.

Take Care,
Joe

I would agree that the exposure is a little flat, but the edit has made the blacks into browns (which is good if the dog turns out to be brown). My take is that the dog is mostly black. How about this edit? As schwettylens indicated, there can be many takes on what is perceived correctness. I guess only the OP knows the correct colouring and needs to find the tweak that will give him the pop he is looking for.

His edit was about dead on, your edit has turned the dog blue again.

 

[oldmacman]

His edit was about dead on, your edit has turned the dog blue again.

As I indicated in my post, I modified under the assumption the dog was mostly black. The tweak I applied brought out a greater range of tone within that colour palette. The OP has since indicated the dog is brown.

 

[mrpink]

HA HA HA! The people paying cash money are your judges. If they are not paying you then you can safely consider such opinions as curious at best.

So you are saying it is better to have paying customers tell you your work is sub par? After they say that, I doubt they will remain a paying customer.. does that mean that their original opinion doesn't matter anymore?

Costly belief there sobo.....

I will take all the free advice I can get, what I do with said advice is up to me.

p!nK

You make one gigantic and false assumption that the paying customer agrees with the random forum opinion. A very flawed and bogus assumption to say the least. Which in a round about way verifies my claim that random forum opinions are not valuable compared to a paying customers.

You are right. I wish I was as smart as you. Maybe what I will do from now on is take whatever is posted, and say the exact opposite, no matter how ridiculous. This will, in my own mind, make me smarter than everyone else.






p!nK

 

[Overread35]

Also, This one was taken in the shade on a fall day a month or so ago.... it's my understanding that this will sometimes put a bluish tint on things..... Its kind of a pain in the ass.

Open up a saturation editing layer/control panel (most editing software should have this control) and go to where it says "Master" that should open up a dropdown menu where you can select a specific colour band and adjust the saturation on that layer alone (instead of the master which adjust all of them all the time). Then go to Cyans - and desaturate the cyan colour fully. That should often remove the "blue" hue that shadowed shots get.