Jump to content
20170827-_V4A7196.jpg Neighbors go canoeing
 

20170827-_V4A7196.jpg Neighbors go canoeing



Just when I least expected it, the couple camping next to me embarked on their little canoe trip and I had only moments to get this shot. I am however pleased at how it turned out 

 


From the album:

Tim Stapenhurst

  • 7 images
  • 0 comments
  • 34 image comments

Photo Information for 20170827-_V4A7196.jpg Neighbors go canoeing


Recommended Comments

This image strikes me as an old Kodachrome 25 slide digitalized.  I would like to have seen the canoe moved into the right 1/3 of the frame padding into the scene.

Link to comment

I am not sure @mikenorton Do you have any tips or suggestions on how to ensure proper color correction? 

 

@Paul Richard Jones - I would have liked to had the opportunity to shoot this from a many different angles but when the "models" are just passing you by you shoot what you can I guess

 

Thanks for all the comments

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Frederick T Stapenhurst said:

I am not sure @mikenorton Do you have any tips or suggestions on how to ensure proper color correction? 

 

@Paul Richard Jones - I would have liked to had the opportunity to shoot this from a many different angles but when the "models" are just passing you by you shoot what you can I guess

 

Thanks for all the comments

If you've got the space, you can always crop it to accomplish this. Also did a color correction, but this image looks to me like one of  today's very popular vintage filters.

canoe2.jpg

Link to comment
  • The color looks like it's from a Photoshop Color Lookup pre-set.
  • Some are good.
  • Some are bad.
  • They are all subjective.

 

IMO ..... The image is a little dark.

Link to comment

The picture looked too yellow to me, that's why I asked the color balance question. Do you understand how to color correct a picture? I opened the picture in Photoshop and went to Image>Adjustment>Color Balance and moved the yellow-blue slider towards the blue end of the scale. That helped to cleaned up the yellow. If you don't understand Color Theory then try this in Photoshop, Image>Auto Color. This also cleaned up the yellow cast. 

What Leonard sees as a little dark is the yellow cast. When it is removed you will see that the exposure is fine.

Link to comment

yellow cast. SS once use to reject image with cross processing unless thousands of images are in series of personal style (Laurin). The reason if the buyer buying images, the cross processing image could not match commercially with other color correct picture. 

Link to comment

I prefer the "yellow" version of the photo, I find that it has more character like this, but it is too much dark (underexposed).
A "perfect" white balance transforms the photo in an uninteresting one.

Link to comment
On 9/14/2017 at 0:05 PM, mikenorton said:

What Leonard sees as a little dark is the yellow cast. When it is removed you will see that the exposure is fine.

That's very true. Such a waste of a great shot.

59bbf3adce1eb_SSTemp4As.thumb.jpg.32a9d907688bd7110914bed623a22bcb.jpg  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Alexlky said:

That's very true. Such a waste of a great shot.

59bbf3adce1eb_SSTemp4As.thumb.jpg.32a9d907688bd7110914bed623a22bcb.jpg  

 

 

  • Alexiky ......... You did more than adjusting the yellow-blue slider towards the blue end of the scale.
  • Most of the correction is due to adjusting the Levels or Curves - maybe even just clicking on Auto Level. Which brightened the image significantly.
  • Any adjustment of the yellow-blue slider would play a very small roll (if any)  in correcting the original image.
Link to comment

On my computer I made the yellow picture look very similar to Alexlky's version by the 2 methods I mentioned in the earlier post. I moved the yellow-blue slider on one and used Auto Color on the other.

I would like to know what criteria everyone is using that makes them think that the picture is dark or underexposed. Looking at the yellow and the corrected versions I see details in the white clouds, no blocked up shadows and plenty of mid-tones. That is the definition of a good exposure. A bad or dark representation of a good exposure does not mean that the exposure bad. It means that the processing is bad. That is why I asked about the color. Reversing the bad color, by whatever process, reveals that the exposure is fine.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, mikenorton said:

On my computer I made the yellow picture look very similar to Alexlky's version by the 2 methods I mentioned in the earlier post. I moved the yellow-blue slider on one and used Auto Color on the other.

I would like to know what criteria everyone is using that makes them think that the picture is dark or underexposed. Looking at the yellow and the corrected versions I see details in the white clouds, no blocked up shadows and plenty of mid-tones. That is the definition of a good exposure. A bad or dark representation of a good exposure does not mean that the exposure bad. It means that the processing is bad. That is why I asked about the color. Reversing the bad color, by whatever process, reveals that the exposure is fine.

Maybe the Histograms say it?

(Yellow overcast + Strong underexposure)
 

scr_al_ 2017-09-16 at 09.16.22.png

Link to comment

What does the histogram show when the yellow is taken out? 

The point is the dark version of the picture is not underexposed, it has not been processed correctly. It is posable for a good exposure to be rendered as a bad print. Think of it as a sheet of yellow plastic that has been placed on top of a good print. When the print is viewed through the yellow plastic it appears dark but when the yellow plastic is removed the picture is fine. Alexlky's comparison clearly shows this.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, mikenorton said:

 Think of it as a sheet of yellow plastic that has been placed on top of a good print. When the print is viewed through the yellow plastic it appears dark but when the yellow plastic is removed the picture is fine. Alexlky's comparison clearly shows this.

 

You can't compare adjustments made to a printed image (reflective light) to an image on a monitor (light transmission).

 

======================================

 

  • Below is the histogram (on GIMP) for all channels, red, green and blue.
  • They are all pushed to the left - underexposed, too dark for this image.
  • For some images that histogram might be OK - but not for this one.

 

 

1.thumb.png.955847fed7308123c5dd46b00488d974.png

 

  • I dragged the right sliders on the red, green and blue channels from 255 to the first black area of each channel.
  • The left sliders were unchanged at 0. And the middle sliders would auto slide with the right sliders.
  • Below is the results.

 

2.jpg.936efd9c7e71708270b5750b24a5cead.jpg

Link to comment
On 9/16/2017 at 2:07 AM, Leonard Whistler said:
  • Alexiky ......... You did more than adjusting the yellow-blue slider towards the blue end of the scale.
  • Most of the correction is due to adjusting the Levels or Curves - maybe even just clicking on Auto Level. Which brightened the image significantly.
  • Any adjustment of the yellow-blue slider would play a very small roll (if any)  in correcting the original image.

Hi @Leonard WhistlerI look for the middle grey, no use of slider or auto level. read more of below-  

11 hours ago, Leonard Whistler said:

Below is the histogram (on GIMP) for all channels, red, green and blue.

You are retrieving colors channels from a cross processed jpeg which will be a bit hard, that's the reason someone noted; A "perfect" white balance transforms the photo in an uninteresting one, as shown by your edited image.

If the OP shoot Raw, there are many option. my edited image was trying to visualize as close as possible what it can be done. imo, applying yellow plastic sheet for whole frame work for some image but not every image. 

Have a look how cross processes work:- 

the sooc might be as yours edited image below

59be0466ab390_SSTemp5a.jpg.98b6216e8c55c73da37521fc39cb60fa.jpg

 

photoshop - color palette #a0a440  layer, apply 50% multiply

59be05920b445_SSTemp5b.jpg.7cd822c0d7ed0b0a6ad6cc5e399d443d.jpg 

now you can see how basically the plugin cause correct exposure image become underexpose. 

 

On 9/16/2017 at 2:07 AM, Leonard Whistler said:

Alexiky ......... You did more than adjusting.

There is no point of explaining every steps the skies are darker, warm and cold through colors channel, if the OP is not replying or do not posses multi layers editing skill. Everyone entitle to their personal taste and I just sharing how I look at it without yellow cast as I agree with Mike.  

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Alexlky said:

There is no point of explaining every steps the skies are darker, warm and cold through colors channel, if the OP is not replying or do not posses multi layers editing skill. Everyone entitle to their personal taste and I just sharing how I look at it without yellow cast as I agree with Mike.  

 

 

  • The only step needed to improve the image is clicking on: Auto Level
  • Or adjusting the levels/curves manually.
  • Removing the yellow cast with the yellow-blue slider doesn't improve the exposure (it actually makes the image worse).

 

  1. Adjust levels first.
  2. Then color balance (if necessary).
Link to comment
On September 16, 2017 at 0:39 PM, Leonard Whistler said:

 

You can't compare adjustments made to a printed image (reflective light) to an image on a monitor (light transmission).

 

What I said about the yellow sheet of plastic is an analogy (two things that are inferred to be similar). Placing 2 pictures next to each other, as Alexlky did, is a comparison.

I didn't say anything about making an adjustment to a printed image. I was making an analogy so that people could understand my points: Which again are, the version with the yellow cast was improperly processed (the yellow sheet of plastic placed on top of the good print is the improper processing) and once the yellow is taken out (the yellow sheet of plastic being removed) the exposure is shown to be fine.

 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...