Chuck, I totally agree with you, I only make minor adjustment for foreground
compensation. Any server adjustment will give artificial look, a slightly
under exposed subject doesn't really matter if it match with the scene well.
I would say I like the original version much more.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt"
> IMHO you've improved the girl but I think you'd have had a better
> overall image by leaving the background brightness alone. Seeing the
> girl standout more brightly than an obviously brightly sunlit background
> gives an artificial appearance.
>
> I learned this lesson the hard way a number of years ago when taking
> some formal family group photos. It was the height of fall color and
> the family chose a spot in a shaded area at the edge of a lake where the
> trees at the far side of the lake were in brilliant late afternoon sun.
> Dr. Flash's advice on fill flash was erroneous and the subjects came
> out slightly brighter than the background. The eye tries to make sense
> of that and the effect was to make the whole beautiful scene look like
> it was shot in a studio with a fall photo as a backdrop. Flat and
> lifeless. Ugh! Post processing fixed it up a lot but it didn't really
> look like it should have.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Moose wrote:
>
>> Aaaaargh! That is so beautiful that I resisted when posted before. I
>> just wanted to see that perfect young skin glow and the light center of
>> the image on her face. A different image, but I like it a great deal
>> too. http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Bernakiewicz/girl-2-s.htm
>>> http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=24925 f5,6
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|