View Full Version : Remove green cast from skin tone
5. Adjust skin tone. I used to wonder about the need for this, considering that adjusting the entire photo should fix skin tone. But now I think that if skin tone adjustment can be made easier, then why not. And I will be curious to see how Adobe compares to others who have been doing this for awhile.What do you recommend for this, Andrew? I have a set of photos where the skin tone is a bit green, though the rest of the photo color balance is quite nice. I've never figured out how to do this with PS.
Andrew B.
09-28-2005, 06:24 PM
What do you recommend for this, Andrew? I have a set of photos where the skin tone is a bit green, though the rest of the photo color balance is quite nice. I've never figured out how to do this with PS.Can you give a link to some of these, or upload at least one here.
Can you give a link to some of these, or upload at least one here.Take a look at the last three images on this page (http://www.pbase.com/jgr/sedona&page=3) of my Arizona trip this summer. I'd appreciate whatever help I can get.
Andrew B.
09-28-2005, 11:21 PM
When I first looked at the photos, it seemed like this might be some unusual case of green in the skin tone. But after making a fairly routine adjustment, the entire photo looked more natural. So I think the problem is not confined to the skin.
This photo could be taken further, but I attached a before and after showing the Curves adjustment I tried. If you are using Photoshop, I can create a preset of this adjustment for you to load and see. If not, I could post screen shots of what I did in Curves. But I want to mention what else I found. I have PictoColor's iCorrect Portrait plugin, which has a specialized skin tone adjuster. And I tried that too. As it adjusted the skin, it also adjusted the rest of the picture based on what is saw wrong in the skin. And I think it did just about as well as I did with Curves, and it was a lot easier to use. But, then again, I am not highly sklled with Curves. So mileage will vary
When I first looked at the photos, it seemed like this might be some unusual case of green in the skin tone. But after making a fairly routine adjustment, the entire photo looked more natural. So I think the problem is not confined to the skin.You're right -- it's not confined (it was a white balance error in one of the few sets of photos I took JPEG rather than RAW so I couldn't fix it easily). The problem with curves, or color balance, or almost anything else, is that it goes almost immediately from green to red!
Andrew B.
09-29-2005, 09:35 AM
The problem with curves, or color balance, or almost anything else, is that it goes almost immediately from green to red!I see "too red," but when I checked further I found this to be a saturation issue, not a hue issue. I didn't post this second step because it was not part of the green adjustment. But give it a try and let me know if it works for you.
terrie
09-29-2005, 02:24 PM
Basically what you've got is a color cast that you need to neutralize...try this:
1. Choose the Color Sampler Tool and set it to "point sample"
2. Find an area that is supposed to be white--I choose the white of her right (as she's facing you) eye, click to make your first color sample
3. Find an area that is supposed to be black--I chose to above and to her right...just above the foot in the background
4. Keep the info palette open and you should see 2 points with their RGB numbers. Note that the Green has the highest numbers in both samples (duh! that's why you've got a green cast...'-}})
5. Make a Levels Adjustment Layer
6. Work with the white point sample first (#1)...in the Levels window, choose the Red Channel and move the rightmost triangle to the left--use the arrow keys--and watch the number for the #1 color point sample Red Channel change in the Info palette...keep moving until the number matches the #1 color point sample number for the Green Channel in the Info palette
7. In the Levels window, choose the Blue Channel and repeat step 6 until the #1 color point sample for the Blue Channel matches the #1 color point sample for the Green Channel in the Info palette.
8. Now work with the black point sample (#2)...keeping the Levels window open, choose the Red Channel again but this time move the leftmost triangle to the right watching the #2 color point sample in the Info palette change until it matches the number for #2 color sample point in the Green Channel in the Info palette
9. Choose the Blue Channel and repeat step 8 until the #2 color point sample Blue Channel number matches the #2 color point sample Green Channel number in the Info palette
10. Ok out...
This should remove the color cast...see the attachment on the left
You may want to add another either Levels or Curves adjustment layer and tweak things a bit more...I added another Level Adjustment layer and tweaked it a bit...see the attachment on the right...
The quality of the jpg's is pretty low but I hope you'll get the idea...
Hope this helps...
Terrie
Andrew B.
09-29-2005, 08:52 PM
I had some time tonight, so I played with the saturation a little. This is about where I would put it. Some people might think this is too high, but taking it lower feels like a bad match to me, considering the harsh lighting.
And, of course, a lot more can be done. This is just "get rid of the green, tone down the saturation." But if this still looks too green, too red, or not like real skin tone, I need to hear. Otherwise I can't improve on matching what others expect.
I see "too red," but when I checked further I found this to be a saturation issue, not a hue issue. I didn't post this second step because it was not part of the green adjustment. But give it a try and let me know if it works for you.Will do, and thanks. I'll be away this weekend so I may not get to it until next week.
terrie
09-30-2005, 04:04 PM
>>andrew: I had some time tonight, so I played with the saturation a little.
I like your version a lot..much better than what I came up with...
Terrie
I had some time tonight, so I played with the saturation a little. This is about where I would put it. Some people might think this is too high, but taking it lower feels like a bad match to me, considering the harsh lighting.Ohhh... that is very nice. If you have some time to play with one of the others in that set and would be kind enough to note what you're doing in the various steps, I'd sure appreciate it. (The one of my brother and his wife (http://www.pbase.com/jgr/image/45338019) would be a good one!)
Andrew B.
10-03-2005, 07:10 PM
Ohhh... that is very nice. If you have some time to play with one of the others in that set and would be kind enough to note what you're doing in the various steps, I'd sure appreciate it.The problems are the same. I fixed them by dragging my adjustment layers from the Katya photo into the other dinner photos.
The problems are the same. I fixed them by dragging my adjustment layers from the Katya photo into the other dinner photos.I figured that would work. But I'm trying to con you, er... convince you into walking me through the steps!
Andrew B.
10-03-2005, 08:34 PM
Which photo editor are you using?
Which photo editor are you using?Photoshop CS. (And have I mentioned lately how grateful I am?)
Andrew B.
10-04-2005, 06:38 PM
Here's what to do.
Open your Katya image. From the menu select Layer|New Adjustment Layer|Curves. Click on Load, and navigate to where you saved the file called Dinner_Katya2.acv. It is attached to this message in a zip file. Load the file and click OK.
Next, from the menu select Layer|New Adjustment Layer|Hue/Saturation. Set saturation to -19 and click OK.
Now, I don't know what level you are at, so I don't know what/if I need to explain about the adjustments I did. So you will have to ask. Also, if Curves is just too daunting to you, maybe the plugin (http://www.pictocolor.com/portrait.htm) I mentioned earlier is worth a test drive.
Thanks, Andrew. I guess my big problem is that I don't really know why you selected the curves points that you did. I understand curves generally, but not the fine tuning.
Thanks, Andrew. I guess my big problem is that I don't really know why you selected the curves points that you did. I understand curves generally, but not the fine tuning.Bruce Fraser explains curves really well in his Real world Photoshop. It's a must have for anyone using Photoshop. I'm still using the one for version 3...
Bruce Fraser explains curves really well in his Real world Photoshop. It's a must have for anyone using Photoshop. I'm still using the one for version 3...Great suggestion, thanks. And there are a few used copies on Amazon right now...
Great suggestion, thanks. And there are a few used copies on Amazon right now...Good idea to pick up one of those - the principles don't change.
Cristen Gillespie
10-05-2005, 03:21 PM
Thanks, Andrew. I guess my big problem is that I don't really know why you selected the curves points that you did. I understand curves generally, but not the fine tuning.
Dan Margulis in Professional Photoshop (v7) really devotes a lot of time to curves. Most of the book, in fact, is about curves, and about selecting points to set on that curve. He doesn't teach this in any kind of general way, but progresses through the book (challenging but far from impossible to understand--and then comes getting the experience to use the theory) from "simple" to extremely esoteric.
This thread had me curious, so I'm going to try to attach the photos. No better than anyone else's--just shows there are many ways to spin a cat. It appears to me that that icky green must have come from flourescent (sp?) lighting somewhere. Your flash should have set a neutral WB, but obviously it can't cope with lighting it doesn't expect.
BTW, although I didn't do anything except work with the color, if I were you, I'd use Shadow/Highlight first on 2 of these to get rid of some of that flash-face look, add some body to the people. After color correcting to something reasonable, then you could go on to fix eyes, lips, teeth, and even locally dial in the amount of "healthy" glow you want in your subjects--how red or how golden, whatever.
It seems my file sizes are too big, so I'm compressing them more. Hope this works<G>
Dan Margulis in Professional Photoshop (v7) really devotes a lot of time to curves. Oh, good! I was hoping someone would pipe up with Dan's name, and was sort of expecting it to come from djb.
Now all we need is for both Dan and Bruce to come in and take up the cudgels where they left off in the Adobe forum in 1999. <g>
Dan Margulis in Professional Photoshop (v7) really devotes a lot of time to curves. Most of the book, in fact, is about curves, and about selecting points to set on that curve. He doesn't teach this in any kind of general way, but progresses through the book (challenging but far from impossible to understand--and then comes getting the experience to use the theory) from "simple" to extremely esoteric.Terrific. Thanks for the suggestion.
This thread had me curious, so I'm going to try to attach the photos. No better than anyone else's--just shows there are many ways to spin a cat. It appears to me that that icky green must have come from flourescent (sp?) lighting somewhere. Your flash should have set a neutral WB, but obviously it can't cope with lighting it doesn't expect.This was not the error of the hardware. It was the error of the wetware -- that is, the stuff between my ears...
LoisWakeman
10-06-2005, 03:32 AM
Judy - do you still use PSP? The colour balance corrector is quite useful sometimes as an alternative. (in effects - enhance photo in version 7, which I still have't upgraded)
Cristen Gillespie
10-06-2005, 08:08 AM
Oh, good! I was hoping someone would pipe up with Dan's name, and was sort of expecting it to come from djb.
Now all we need is for both Dan and Bruce to come in and take up the cudgels where they left off in the Adobe forum in 1999. <g>
ROFL. I wonder if they've spoken to each other even once in the past 5 years. Dan and Andrew Rodney seem to have taken up where Bruce left off. ;-)
Dan's gotten MUCH better about explaining why he does what he does--that is, by analyzing the photo itself, rather than telling me how obviously wrong the opposition is<G> He's really become very useful and ever so much easier to follow. I imagine lucky dogs like DJB who got to take a course from him got the explanation he tended to leave out of his earlier books--considering it too "obvious" to bother explaining. Might have been---to those professionals who had already btdt, but to us amateurs, it was a bit puzzling--10 channel blends in a row because it was so obvious that that move, in that order, would get one to the final result<ggg>
Cristen Gillespie
10-06-2005, 08:15 AM
Terrific. Thanks for the suggestion.
This was not the error of the hardware. It was the error of the wetware -- that is, the stuff between my ears...
Well, artificial lighting IS the responsibility of the photographer, but that doesn't mean it's easy to detect and know how to fix in camera<G> Mixed lighting is common, and that is even more difficult. I suppose you could have thrown down a white card and created a custom WB, but that does tend to interrupt the festivities just a bit. ;-)
I've been working with amateur photos at a wedding and reception. The reception was held outdoors on a bright sunny day, but under trees. The bride wore white, not a cyan/yellow/magenta tie dye, and setting the WB to shade would have helped a lot, but then there are those this person took of people, some of whom were in the shade and some out in full sun. Joyous stuff, balancing all that<G>
Well, artificial lighting IS the responsibility of the photographer, but that doesn't mean it's easy to detect and know how to fix in camera<G>
I usually shoot RAW, which allows me to fix this sort of error easily and quickly in the post-processing. Why I was shooting JPG this time, I couldn't begin to tell you... and BOY am I annoyed with myself...
I've been working with amateur photos at a wedding and reception. The reception was held outdoors on a bright sunny day, but under trees. The bride wore white, not a cyan/yellow/magenta tie dye, and setting the WB to shade would have helped a lot, but then there are those this person took of people, some of whom were in the shade and some out in full sun. Joyous stuff, balancing all that<G>Ouch. Yeah, that's about the worst of all possible worlds...
Judy - do you still use PSP? The colour balance corrector is quite useful sometimes as an alternative. (in effects - enhance photo in version 7, which I still have't upgraded)Ordinarily I use Photoshop CS. But I still have PSP7 for those things that, quite frankly, PSP is better or easier (or both!) for, such as red eye correction.
I imagine lucky dogs like DJB who got to take a course from him got the explanation he tended to leave out of his earlier books--considering it too "obvious" to bother explaining. Might have been---to those professionals who had already btdt, but to us amateurs, it was a bit puzzling--10 channel blends in a row because it was so obvious that that move, in that order, would get one to the final result<ggg>It's likely that teaching all those courses, and having to answer the questions, helped him in writing the later books. I have to admit that while I enjoyed the stoushes in the Adobe forum, the technical bits left me a bit glassy-eyed.
Andrew B.
10-06-2005, 07:03 PM
Thanks, Andrew. I guess my big problem is that I don't really know why you selected the curves points that you did. I understand curves generally, but not the fine tuning.My fine tune methods are not very scientific. But to help explain this, I took a look at what I did. And now, I think I could have done this with fewer points. Not sure. But regardless, my approach to these things is generally pretty simple. There are shadows, midtones, and highlights along with four places to adjust them (R, G, B and RGB).
1. Adjust the Green. The most apparent problems is too much green. So I did that first. In the Green channel pulled on the center of the line down (toward the lower right) until it looked like there was no more green problem. I started by pulling on the center because the midtones is a good place to start for casts. I notice I also added a point in the shadow range and pulled down, so maybe I thought the shadows needed some extra green reduction. Now I'm not so sure they did.
2. Adjust the lightness and contrast. Pulling down the green made things darker and harder to see. So I moved to the combined RGB channel next. And in there, I pulled up (toward upper left) on the center, to make things lighter. Then I added points for highlights and shadows fiddled a little to see if I could make the image feel less flat. With these adjustments, I just move a little bit in one direction and see how it looks, then try another, and another. Slight moves. This might sound like a lot of work, but it is actually less than a minute.
3. After the above I saw a bluish hint in some areas of the skin and elsewhere. So I tried pulling down the center of the blue channel. But this made things too yellow. So I added the standard anchors to mid, shadow, and highlight. Then fiddled as I described in number two. Also, you probably know that the Curves interface allows you to click on the picture, and when you do it will show you where on the curve that point is. So, with this step I might have done that, by clicking on the bluish areas to reduce it. Or yellow area to move back the other direction. I just don't remember. But it is something I use, so I probably did this time.
4. For some reason I wanted a tad more red. Maybe it was because I had been staring at yellow and blue and green and was not being very objective. So I pulled up the red mid point a little.
Anyway, that's it. I am not advanced enough to take readings from the image and pick all the best spots to add points. I fly by eye and hope for the best.
my approach to these things is generally pretty simple. There are shadows, midtones, and highlights along with four places to adjust them (R, G, B and RGB).That discussion was very helpful, Andrew, and gives me a lot of assistance in playing with this more. I think you're going to help me salvage a couple of other shots that I couldn't quite figure out how to save. (Not to mention how often I remind myself: shoot RAW! shoot RAW!)
Thanks VERY much.
Cristen Gillespie
10-07-2005, 07:33 AM
I usually shoot RAW, which allows me to fix this sort of error easily and quickly in the post-processing. Why I was shooting JPG this time, I couldn't begin to tell you... and BOY am I annoyed with myself...
Ouch. Yeah, that's about the worst of all possible worlds...
I definitely don't like shooting jpg<G> I didn't know my camera as well as I should (heck, still don't) and one day was using manual and (I thought) Program mode, switching the dial back and forth. Lo and behold I had some pictures upload as JPGs. ???? Boy was I puzzled until I found out that I had dialed back to the beginning click without looking, and that was this strange Auto mode I never use. LOL I learned my lesson.
In the photography forum one woman was upset that amateurs with a digital camera didn't have to learn photography to get good photos because they could use PS to fix anything. Um...I was a dissenter then, and after working with these pictures, I'm even more of a dissenter. PS can't turn garbage exposures and composures into professional images. There literally isn't ONE lucky shot in the batch (over 100 that I was given). I was just lucky that the camera had enough pixels for severe cropping. Now if only they hadn't been compressed to the max!
Cristen Gillespie
10-07-2005, 07:37 AM
It's likely that teaching all those courses, and having to answer the questions, helped him in writing the later books. I have to admit that while I enjoyed the stoushes in the Adobe forum, the technical bits left me a bit glassy-eyed.
They still leave me very glassy-eyed, although Margulis is less the culprit these days than some others who argue about profiles and the like. You'd need a physics degree to understand what they're talking about<G> I dutifully read it all, in the naive hope that one day just reading it often enough will make it all clear, but without a physics background (does my grandfather count? Could it be in my genes, just a little too latent?<ggg>), I don't stand a chance.
Cristen Gillespie
10-07-2005, 07:45 AM
Anyway, that's it. I am not advanced enough to take readings from the image and pick all the best spots to add points. I fly by eye and hope for the best.
There aren't enough points possible to fix to pick the best--or all the necessary points we need to keep our eye on as we correct, and numbers are a guide, not a certainty, at least in most cases. Some of us feel more comfortable with numbers to guide us, but a good eye with a calibrated monitor can certainly get the job done. It has been done that way for years by a great many successful people.
I dutifully read it all, in the naive hope that one day just reading it often enough will make it all clear, but without a physics background (does my grandfather count? Could it be in my genes, just a little too latent?<ggg>), I don't stand a chance.Yeah, and most of us are in the situation where we have to get a usable photo into a magazine by deadline - and that photo is usually only a very small part of the whole article, let alone the magazine itself.
In the photography forum one woman was upset that amateurs with a digital camera didn't have to learn photography to get good photos because they could use PS to fix anything. Uh... and somebody who doesn't know how to use a digital camera is going to be able to figure out Photoshop???? R-i-i-i-g-h-t.
Cristen Gillespie
10-08-2005, 08:21 AM
Yeah, and most of us are in the situation where we have to get a usable photo into a magazine by deadline - and that photo is usually only a very small part of the whole article, let alone the magazine itself.
If photography is the whole of your work, maybe it's worth it. I wouldn't know since I still don't understand enough to know what I'm missing<G> But yeah, to plop it into a magazine, that physics degree is a bit of overkill.
Cristen Gillespie
10-08-2005, 08:24 AM
Uh... and somebody who doesn't know how to use a digital camera is going to be able to figure out Photoshop???? R-i-i-i-g-h-t.
They'll sure learn quickly enough that it's easier to fix the problem (that lampshade becoming someone's unwanted hat, that horrible exposure creating unspeakable noise, etc) in the camera than it is in PS.
I get a kick out of turning garbage into mere disk-wasting trash, but it's even more fun to turn a good photo into a thing of beauty. ;-)
I get a kick out of turning garbage into mere disk-wasting trash, but it's even more fun to turn a good photo into a thing of beauty. ;-)Tell me about it... and even these (http://www.pbase.com/jgr/best) aren't nearly as good as I'd like them to be...
terrie
10-08-2005, 12:02 PM
Judy...that tiger (http://www.pbase.com/jgr/image/17506019) shot is just stunning!
Where was that taken?
Terrie
ktinkel
10-08-2005, 12:18 PM
Judy...that tiger (http://www.pbase.com/jgr/image/17506019) shot is just stunning!
Where was that taken?Well, you know she is a lawyer, right? Probably taken in court! <g>
It really is a fabulous picture.
terrie
10-08-2005, 12:54 PM
>>kt: Well, you know she is a lawyer, right? Probably taken in court! <g>
LOL!!!
Terrie
Judy...that tiger (http://www.pbase.com/jgr/image/17506019) shot is just stunning!Thanks very much!
Where was that taken?Believe it or not, it was taken at ... (ready for this?) ... an aquarium.
Really.
Honest.
I wouldn't kid you.
The Denver Aquarium (http://www.downtownaquariumdenver.com) is now under new management, but its website (on the exhibits page) still has a picture of a tiger! Beautiful display.
Well, you know she is a lawyer, right? Probably taken in court! <g> It really is a fabulous picture.Thanks for the kind words, but courtroom pictures would be of sharks, not tigers!!!
Thanks for the kind words, but courtroom pictures would be of sharks, not tigers!!!That tiger photo reminded me of Life of Pi, which I read a few months ago. Was it taken at a zoo? The tiger looks really healthy.
Andrew B.
10-08-2005, 08:49 PM
Glad to help. It was interesting to see this problem. I've never seen one quite like this before. Also, I'm attaching another curves preset. This is a simplified version of the last one I uploaded, and sticks more being just a correction. And it might work okay without adding a desaturation layer, depending one what one prefers.
Anyway, give it a look. It might be a better example than the last one I sent.
That tiger photo reminded me of Life of Pi, which I read a few months ago. Was it taken at a zoo? The tiger looks really healthy.At an aquarium, of all places! The Denver Aquarium has a tiger exhibit, and all the tigers look very well cared for.
It was interesting to see this problem. I've never seen one quite like this before.I'm glad my fumble-fingered operator error provided you some entertainment. I'll let you know how the adjustment works. And thanks again.
Andrew B.
10-09-2005, 08:32 AM
So that was an operator error? Do you know what the error was? Because the fix was not a white point adjustment.
Cristen Gillespie
10-09-2005, 08:39 AM
Tell me about it... and even these (http://www.pbase.com/jgr/best) aren't nearly as good as I'd like them to be...
You are, of course, kidding<G> These pictures are a joy. Anytime you have to study a picture for 5 minutes just to see if there is any improvement possible is a joy. And if this is what you get, no wonder you are a bit fuzzy about using Curves. Desperation is a good teacher, and you're not desperate enough.
The only person I've read who could guide you with images like these is Margulis. Basic curves can sometimes deal with icky green skin (I simply flattened the "a" LAB curve to eliminate it--a matter of a minute), but it takes much, much more effort to do anything positive with good images.
But then, these are good enough you could simply keep taking good pictures and not worry about PS. :-)
fhaber
10-09-2005, 08:49 AM
Before Judy replies, I'll guess. I've seen similar in the video world when someone shoots under cheap "daylight" fluorescents without a minus-green filter (yes, a purple one). Or, it could be a flash reflecting off greenery nearby. That reflects a lot of IR and can drive sensors absolutely nuts. (As in, don't try to guess the resultant color cast).
You are, of course, kidding<G> These pictures are a joy. Anytime you have to study a picture for 5 minutes just to see if there is any improvement possible is a joy.You are way too kind. The fact is that I shoot... and shoot... and shoot... knowing that eventually (like the hands of even a stopped clock being right twice a day) I'm going to get something I like. There's a lot more I'd like to do, but this working for a living bit keeps getting in my way. I would so like to be able to retire and have more time for everything else.
So that was an operator error? Do you know what the error was? Because the fix was not a white point adjustment.Looking at the EXIF data, somehow the white balance got set to something called "Custom2". That's the only difference in EXIF between photos taken literally two minutes earlier and these (and on to the end of the day).
What I can't find is a way to determine what the "Custom2" was supposed to be good for... I'm assuming that's how it was set originally, since it's a sure bet I never defined a custom white balance for this camera. But it is very VERY green.
I've just this minute redefined that white balance so if I ever hit it again by accident it won't be SOOOOOOO bad.
Before Judy replies, I'll guess. I've seen similar in the video world when someone shoots under cheap "daylight" fluorescents without a minus-green filter (yes, a purple one). Or, it could be a flash reflecting off greenery nearby. That reflects a lot of IR and can drive sensors absolutely nuts. (As in, don't try to guess the resultant color cast).I wish I knew exactly, Frank. As I just said to Andrew, somehow I managed to switch the white balance to a custom-defined one, and I can't see any way in the EXIF data to see what it was set for. It must have been an out-of-the-box setting because, until a minute ago (when I reset that thing so I wouldn't get burned like this again in the future if I managed somehow to change the white balance without realizing it), I'd never set up any custom settings on this camera. I generally shoot in RAW, program mode and auto white balance. If I do switch white balance, it's usually to tungsten or fluorescent to achieve a particular "look". But this thing... ewwwwwwwww!
I should add that most of the photos "burned" by this were taken either in very bright or fairly dim light so I didn't see the change on the LCD. <sigh>...
At an aquarium, of all places! The Denver Aquarium has a tiger exhibit, and all the tigers look very well cared for.So I gathered from your other reply. You could have knocked me down with the proverbial feather!
Andrew B.
10-09-2005, 02:34 PM
At an aquarium, of all places! The Denver Aquarium has a tiger exhibit, and all the tigers look very well cared for.Do they provide a swimming area for the tigers?
Do they provide a swimming area for the tigers?The pools at the bottom of the climbing rocks were probably big enough for them to swim in.
So I gathered from your other reply. You could have knocked me down with the proverbial feather!It certainly wasn't what I expected to see at an aquarium, that's for sure. But it was really spectacular.
Cristen Gillespie
10-10-2005, 07:21 AM
You are way too kind. The fact is that I shoot... and shoot... and shoot... knowing that eventually (like the hands of even a stopped clock being right twice a day) I'm going to get something I like.
A long time ago, in the days of film, I read about how many pictures a photog submitted to NatlGeo to get one printed. It was something awesome and at the time, I thought heck, anyone could do it. <BG> Not true.
Shooting a lot over a long period of time is going to teach you what works, even if you shoot randomly, or perhaps especially if for a while you shoot randomly, just to see. But if luck were it, that person who took 133 pictures at the wedding and reception should have gotten one lucky shot, and didn't. Not one single lucky shot. Not one single shot that anyone would say looked intentional, rather than completely accidental as to when the shutter was released.
Don't put yourself down for getting some great shots. You decided when to release the shutter button, and that means more than we give ourselves credit for. Once in a while we are really in tune with our subject. :-)
Don't put yourself down for getting some great shots. You decided when to release the shutter button, and that means more than we give ourselves credit for. Once in a while we are really in tune with our subject. :-)I do, truly, understand that whatever it means to have "an eye" for a photograph, I do have it, most of the time. I can see in my mind what the camera can capture and what I can do with it afterwards. What I can't do with nearly as much regularity as I would like is get the camera to capture what I see in my mind! There is such a difference, from a technical perspective, between what the camera can capture and what I am telling it at the moment it should capture!!
terrie
10-10-2005, 03:05 PM
>>jgr: an aquarium.
ROFL!!! And here I thought cats didn't like water...of course there are alll those fishies to salivate over...'-}}
Terrie
Andrew B.
10-10-2005, 05:16 PM
Tigers are not like other cats. http://www.panda.org/photogallery/gallery.cfm?uGalleryID=47&uImageID=202
ktinkel
10-10-2005, 05:36 PM
Tigers are not like other cats.Oh, well — no wonder Judy shot hers at an aquarium! <g>
Cristen Gillespie
10-11-2005, 07:37 AM
There is such a difference, from a technical perspective, between what the camera can capture and what I am telling it at the moment it should capture!!
Yeah. I wanted to capture the contrast...but....but....not THAT much contrast. And why the camera can't do what my brain does and correct the perspective when I want it to is forever a mystery.<ggg>
In that sense, it should also erase that palm tree growing out of someone's head. I know *I* did when I captured such a wonderful expression. Oh well<sigh>
Great photographers learn to work with the light and with the perspective the camera takes, so zen is to become one with the camera instead of trying to make the camera do our brain's bidding. It will never see what we do.
terrie
10-11-2005, 11:36 AM
>>andrew: Tigers are not like other cats.
Yeah...I remembered that Tigers like water after I posted...lovely shot of those 2...'-}}
Terrie
Andrew B.
10-11-2005, 01:31 PM
Probably the least fishy display there. :-)
of course there are alll those fishies to salivate over...'-}}I kept thinking what would happen if one of the tigers ever got out -- "oh NO! not THAT very expensive rare fish!"
Oh, well — no wonder Judy shot hers at an aquarium! <g>ROFL! I have to admit, I really didn't expect tigers at an aquarium.
Great photographers learn to work with the light and with the perspective the camera takes, so zen is to become one with the camera instead of trying to make the camera do our brain's bidding. It will never see what we do.Which is why, for now, I am occasionally a good photographer but rarely even approach great. Darn it...
terrie
10-12-2005, 01:39 PM
>>jgr: I kept thinking what would happen if one of the tigers ever got out -- "oh NO! not THAT very expensive rare fish!"
LOL!!! Somewhere I read about someone who had stocked their koi pond with very exotic (and expensive) koi only to have a heron come by and over a period of days eat all the koi...free sushi bar for herons...'-}}
Terrie
Somewhere I read about someone who had stocked their koi pond with very exotic (and expensive) koi only to have a heron come by and over a period of days eat all the koi...ROFL! Now THAT would seriously annoy me...
terrie
10-13-2005, 12:38 PM
>>jgr: ROFL! Now THAT would seriously annoy me...
I think the homeowner was pretty ticked off...'-}}
Terrie
Molly/CA
10-16-2005, 07:09 AM
Terrie, that was a real lesson. Thanks for taking the time to list the steps and post them!
Mollly
Hope this helps...MY APOLOGIES!!! I hadn't seen this before Molly posted her comment but oh yes it helps a lot. Many thanks.
terrie
10-17-2005, 03:20 PM
>>molly: Terrie, that was a real lesson. Thanks for taking the time to list the steps and post them!
You're most welcome...the approach was originally in a Design Graphics magazine a few years ago...many times it will do the trick...
Terrie
terrie
10-17-2005, 03:27 PM
>>jgr: MY APOLOGIES!!! I hadn't seen this before Molly posted her comment but oh yes it helps a lot. Many thanks.
Not to worry...I'm glad you found it helpful...I think Andrew's approach worked better in this case...as I mentioned to Molly, the approach was outlined in a Design Graphics issue a number of years ago and unfortunately, I've misplaced the article...in addition to using the Levels Adjustment layer as I outlined, the last part of the article also discussed following the Levels with a Curves Adjustment...I going to search through my binder full of articles and see if I can find the article in question...if so, I'll post back about the Curves process...
Terrie
I going to search through my binder full of articles and see if I can find the article in question...if so, I'll post back about the Curves process...That'd be great, thanks. Sigh... I have got to find some time to really learn Photoshop... and CSS... and...
terrie
10-18-2005, 02:50 PM
>>jgr: That'd be great, thanks. Sigh... I have got to find some time to really learn Photoshop... and CSS... and...
LOL!!! I know the feeling...PSCS2 is still floorware as I've not had a chance to install it yet...will let you know if I can find the article...
Terrie
PSCS2 is still floorware as I've not had a chance to install it yet...FLOORWARE! ROFL! That's the first time I've seen the term used but oh BOY is it accurate.
Andrew B.
10-18-2005, 08:35 PM
…PSCS2 is still floorware as I've not had a chance to install it yet…You're not missing much.
terrie
10-19-2005, 02:32 PM
>>jgr: FLOORWARE! ROFL! That's the first time I've seen the term used but oh BOY is it accurate.
Indeed...I have quite a bit of it...'-}}
Terrie
terrie
10-19-2005, 02:33 PM
>>andrew: You're not missing much.
Well...I'm still running PS7 so...'-}}
Terrie
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.