how would you have made this picture better?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Just Shoot Me, Sep 27, 2007.

  1. lol first of all by mistake I posted this in the support group
    were my trolls come from. So I guess my trolls that post here will know for
    sure
    and more will come. Sorry

    one of the pictures that gave me a lot of trouble yesterday is
    on the link below.
    if anyone is willing I would love to know how you would have made this
    picture better with out using
    any of the apartments lighting.
    I wish I knew how to include the metadata with the pictures so I typed it in
    on the web site.
    if you know how I can do that please tell.
    I will be using Photoshop elements 4.0 for edit

    Also I would like to include a links page for those of you with web sites.
    So also please include if I can put your link on my page.


    http://www.takebetterpix.com/pictures.html


    thank you

    JSM

    OOO helll. My name is Tom
    I don't know how the hell I did that
     
    Just Shoot Me, Sep 27, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Just Shoot Me

    Somebody Guest

    "Just Shoot Me" <> wrote in message
    news:0yDKi.2492$WT2.256@trndny05...
    >
    > lol first of all by mistake I posted this in the support group
    > were my trolls come from. So I guess my trolls that post here will know
    > for sure
    > and more will come. Sorry
    >
    > one of the pictures that gave me a lot of trouble yesterday is
    > on the link below.
    > if anyone is willing I would love to know how you would have made this
    > picture better with out using
    > any of the apartments lighting.
    > I wish I knew how to include the metadata with the pictures so I typed it
    > in
    > on the web site.
    > if you know how I can do that please tell.
    > I will be using Photoshop elements 4.0 for edit
    >
    > Also I would like to include a links page for those of you with web sites.
    > So also please include if I can put your link on my page.
    >
    >
    > http://www.takebetterpix.com/pictures.html
    >
    >
    > thank you
    >
    > JSM
    >
    > OOO helll. My name is Tom
    > I don't know how the hell I did that
    >
    >


    I think I would have went for a subject that was a little more interesting.
    Otherwise it looks like a typical indoor shot. Of camera flash might have
    improved the lighting. Doing as an HDR might have worked well so that
    everything was exposed right including the stuff outside the window. For
    what it is its ok, it just a really boring and I dare say pointless photo.
    Unless of course your trying to sell the house.

    Somebody!
     
    Somebody, Sep 27, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Just Shoot Me

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:18:52 GMT, Just Shoot Me wrote:

    > one of the pictures that gave me a lot of trouble yesterday is
    > on the link below.
    > if anyone is willing I would love to know how you would have made this
    > picture better with out using any of the apartments lighting.
    > I wish I knew how to include the metadata with the pictures so I typed it in
    > on the web site.
    > if you know how I can do that please tell.
    > I will be using Photoshop elements 4.0 for edit


    Were there any problems other than with the lighting? If you're
    trying to produce beautiful pictures for a future coffee-table book
    there's much room for improvement. But if the picture is intended
    just to show off the apartment for prospective buyers, it's not too
    bad. I used Irfanview, which can easily copy the EXIF data to
    Window's clipboard, but not from pictures on the website, since the
    EXIF data wasn't included. The only thing I used Irfanview for was
    to use it to apply a bit of gamma correction, which improved the
    dark areas. Not much was lost in the overly bright area near the
    window since it was already blown.

    You may not want to use the apartment's lighting, but uneven
    lighting will be your biggest problem. Not relying on apartment
    lighting is probably a good idea, since it can vary greatly from
    apartment to apartment, and cause color balance problems. A couple
    of small portable speedlights would probably be a big help, and I
    wouldn't want to rely too much on photo-editing to compensate for
    uneven lighting. If any prospective buyers ask if your pictures
    were "Photoshopped", they'd probably be much happier to hear you
    answer "no". They'd probably have no concerns if you told them that
    some additional lighting was used when taking the picture.

    One thing that surprised me was the photo's relative lack of
    sharpness. Even at f/22 I'd have thought that the picture would
    have been crisper. How stable was the camera? Could anything have
    disturbed it during the 30 second exposure, such as slight wind
    currents in the room, or induced vibrations resulting from walking
    near the camera? What support was used, if not a good tripod?
     
    ASAAR, Sep 27, 2007
    #3
  4. "Somebody" <> wrote in message
    news:46fb1424$0$14132$...
    > I think I would have went for a subject that was a little more
    > interesting. Otherwise it looks like a typical indoor shot. Of camera
    > flash might have improved the lighting. Doing as an HDR might have worked
    > well so that everything was exposed right including the stuff outside the
    > window. For what it is its ok, it just a really boring and I dare say
    > pointless photo. Unless of course your trying to sell the house.
    >
    > Somebody!



    Yes, that apartment is about as appealing as Oscar De La Hoya wearing
    women's clothes.
    and I am in real estate. good news is that is not my apartment bad news is
    I have to make it look its best.

    I was just looking at some pictures that used HDR is this something that can
    be done with Photoshop elements 4.0?
    I think I have to upgrade to 5.0 so I can use camera raw.

    the pictures that I looked at were what I would call beautiful. I guess a
    book on HDR is also something I should get.

    Thank you

    Tom
     
    Just Shoot Me, Sep 27, 2007
    #4
  5. "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:18:52 GMT, Just Shoot Me wrote:
    >
    >> one of the pictures that gave me a lot of trouble yesterday is
    >> on the link below.
    >> if anyone is willing I would love to know how you would have made this
    >> picture better with out using any of the apartments lighting.
    >> I wish I knew how to include the metadata with the pictures so I typed it
    >> in
    >> on the web site.
    >> if you know how I can do that please tell.
    >> I will be using Photoshop elements 4.0 for edit

    >
    > Were there any problems other than with the lighting? If you're
    > trying to produce beautiful pictures for a future coffee-table book
    > there's much room for improvement. But if the picture is intended
    > just to show off the apartment for prospective buyers, it's not too
    > bad. I used Irfanview, which can easily copy the EXIF data to
    > Window's clipboard, but not from pictures on the website, since the
    > EXIF data wasn't included. The only thing I used Irfanview for was
    > to use it to apply a bit of gamma correction, which improved the
    > dark areas. Not much was lost in the overly bright area near the
    > window since it was already blown.
    >
    > You may not want to use the apartment's lighting, but uneven
    > lighting will be your biggest problem. Not relying on apartment
    > lighting is probably a good idea, since it can vary greatly from
    > apartment to apartment, and cause color balance problems. A couple
    > of small portable speedlights would probably be a big help, and I
    > wouldn't want to rely too much on photo-editing to compensate for
    > uneven lighting. If any prospective buyers ask if your pictures
    > were "Photoshopped", they'd probably be much happier to hear you
    > answer "no". They'd probably have no concerns if you told them that
    > some additional lighting was used when taking the picture.
    >
    > One thing that surprised me was the photo's relative lack of
    > sharpness. Even at f/22 I'd have thought that the picture would
    > have been crisper. How stable was the camera? Could anything have
    > disturbed it during the 30 second exposure, such as slight wind
    > currents in the room, or induced vibrations resulting from walking
    > near the camera? What support was used, if not a good tripod?



    besides the lighting the apartment is ugly.
    wow I would love one day for my pics to be in a mag but no
    I am into real estate.
    everyapartment has a few different kinds of lighting.
    sometimes a room with have 2 kinds of dim lighting ( more times thanyou are
    thinking right now)
    If possible I would love to be independent of the apartments lights and just
    use either the windows or 580EX II with a few slave flashes. also learn
    more about what Floyd was talking about with when working with flash ( Floyd
    and others ).

    good point about being able to say no Photoshop but as you can see the
    kitchen looks a little narrow
    and I do correct things like that in Photoshop ( its the only way I know
    how.)
    I took a lot of pictures in that room and while yes sometimes on long
    exposures I walk near or even touched the tri pod
    I cant tell for sure about that picture. I will try to do better.
    My tri pod sux. but sorry to say that both my dogs need dental work done
    and they are going in tomorrow.
    its a rush job because their teeth are pretty bad and they both have bad
    kidneys so it has to be done asap
    before the kidneys get worse. about a month or so ago I lost my oldest dog
    which was 18 years old :(.
    its sad that the other 2 will be gone soon as they were with my wife and I
    since we were married and are part of the family.
    I am actually cooking a low protein meal for them right now if you or anyone
    ever needs a good recipe for dogs I will be happy to help. I babbled..
    sorry.

    thanks again.

    Tom
     
    Just Shoot Me, Sep 27, 2007
    #5
  6. Just Shoot Me

    Frank ess Guest

    Just Shoot Me wrote:

    [ ... ]

    .. but sorry to say that both my dogs need dental
    > work done and they are going in tomorrow.
    > its a rush job because their teeth are pretty bad and they both
    > have bad kidneys so it has to be done asap
    > before the kidneys get worse. about a month or so ago I lost my
    > oldest dog which was 18 years old :(.
    > its sad that the other 2 will be gone soon as they were with my
    > wife and I since we were married and are part of the family.
    > I am actually cooking a low protein meal for them right now if you
    > or anyone ever needs a good recipe for dogs I will be happy to
    > help. I babbled.. sorry.
    >


    Sorry to know about your recent and future losses. It's sad that we
    have to outlive our animal companions. In my long and comfortable
    life, loss of dogs has been one of the major discomforts, more than a
    dozen episodes by now, and another likely in the next few years.


    I'm not certain if it's been mentioned, but a common technique for
    indoor shooting with intruding outdoor light is to make two exposures
    from the same position, one for inside light, the other for outside.
    Overlay the two, indoor on top, and erase the indoor area where the
    valid outdoor information appears. It may not make the apartment more
    beautiful, but it will surely un-dramatize the glare. Of course you
    run the risk of showing an unattractive view from the windows.

    I'd experiment with a lower viewpoint for the camera on those
    wide-angles with long vistas. Drop it down a foot and see if you like
    the perspective better. If you are average height for a man, remember
    that half or more of home-shoppers are female and a bit shorter.

    Alternatively, raise it up to an exaggerated level. That way it will
    be an obvious distortion and while it may make things look different -
    maybe even more attractive - the expectation of correspondence with
    reality will be diminished, and the viewers who actually go to the
    place will explain it away themselves.


    Kind, strong and healing thoughts going out for your dogs.

    --
    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, Sep 27, 2007
    #6
  7. Just Shoot Me

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:37:19 GMT, Just Shoot Me wrote:

    > besides the lighting the apartment is ugly.
    > wow I would love one day for my pics to be in a mag but no
    > I am into real estate.


    I know, from previous threads. My point was that for your
    purposes, photo perfection isn't a reasonable or desirable goal. I
    didn't know if that's what your were aiming for was since you didn't
    say very much about why you weren't pleased by the photo.


    > everyapartment has a few different kinds of lighting.
    > sometimes a room with have 2 kinds of dim lighting ( more times thanyou are
    > thinking right now)
    > If possible I would love to be independent of the apartments lights and just
    > use either the windows or 580EX II with a few slave flashes. also learn
    > more about what Floyd was talking about with when working with flash ( Floyd
    > and others ).
    >
    > good point about being able to say no Photoshop but as you can see the
    > kitchen looks a little narrow and I do correct things like that in Photoshop
    > ( its the only way I know how.)


    Well, you know your business better than I do, but making such
    "fixes" could be counterproductive. First, I'd think that the best
    fix would be to change the perspective by playing with a different
    camera position and lens focal length, than by using Photoshop. And
    since practically nobody would sign a lease based only on seeing
    pictures of the apartment, I'd rather have a poorer picture generate
    less initial interest in the apartment, but have the prospective
    buyer's expectations exceeded when visiting the apartment than to
    have a better looking photo, only to disappoint when the prospective
    buyer gets a chance to visit the apartment.
     
    ASAAR, Sep 27, 2007
    #7
  8. Just Shoot Me

    D-Mac Guest

    "Just Shoot Me" <> wrote in message
    news:0yDKi.2492$WT2.256@trndny05...
    >
    > lol first of all by mistake I posted this in the support group
    > were my trolls come from. So I guess my trolls that post here will know
    > for sure
    > and more will come. Sorry
    >
    > one of the pictures that gave me a lot of trouble yesterday is
    > on the link below.
    > if anyone is willing I would love to know how you would have made this
    > picture better with out using
    > any of the apartments lighting.
    > I wish I knew how to include the metadata with the pictures so I typed it
    > in
    > on the web site.
    > if you know how I can do that please tell.
    > I will be using Photoshop elements 4.0 for edit
    >
    > Also I would like to include a links page for those of you with web sites.
    > So also please include if I can put your link on my page.
    >
    >
    > http://www.takebetterpix.com/pictures.html
    >
    >
    > thank you


    I used a plug-in called "Flo's filters" from France to correct the
    pincushion error as much as it could be and then I used his "undistort" tool
    to correct the perspective error which is caused by not having the camera
    exactly at 90 degrees to the vertical lines.

    Then I applied a "fill light effect" with the shadow highlights tool of
    Photoshop.
    PS Elements has a function called "fill flash" for that purpose. SO I'd
    expect Elements can use PS plugins... $40 or so for the tools and the best
    investment you'll ever make for that wide angle lens of yours.

    Doug
     
    D-Mac, Sep 27, 2007
    #8
  9. Just Shoot Me

    Somebody Guest

    "Just Shoot Me" <> wrote in message
    news:_2FKi.6222$Pc3.212@trndny09...
    >
    > "Somebody" <> wrote in message
    > news:46fb1424$0$14132$...
    >> I think I would have went for a subject that was a little more
    >> interesting. Otherwise it looks like a typical indoor shot. Of camera
    >> flash might have improved the lighting. Doing as an HDR might have worked
    >> well so that everything was exposed right including the stuff outside the
    >> window. For what it is its ok, it just a really boring and I dare say
    >> pointless photo. Unless of course your trying to sell the house.
    >>
    >> Somebody!

    >
    >
    > Yes, that apartment is about as appealing as Oscar De La Hoya wearing
    > women's clothes.
    > and I am in real estate. good news is that is not my apartment bad news
    > is I have to make it look its best.
    >
    > I was just looking at some pictures that used HDR is this something that
    > can be done with Photoshop elements 4.0?
    > I think I have to upgrade to 5.0 so I can use camera raw.
    >
    > the pictures that I looked at were what I would call beautiful. I guess a
    > book on HDR is also something I should get.
    >
    > Thank you
    >
    > Tom
    >


    Elements doesn't do HDR. The full version of Photoshop does. But, that is
    expensive even as an upgrade to PSE. I would look at http://www.hdrsoft.com.
    They have some good software. You will also need to use a tripod when
    shooting. Basically you shoot at least 3 shots. One under exposed (dark),
    one exposed correctly and one over exposed (too light). These are then
    combined using the software in to one high bit image that is supposed to be
    properly exposed. I am not a fan of HDR as I think it looks like a painting.
    However, for this application I think it is the right option. If your camera
    can do bracketing (most can) then use that. If your lucky you can do 5
    bracketed photos (less common) otherwise you do three (more common).

    Somebody!
     
    Somebody, Sep 27, 2007
    #9
  10. Just Shoot Me

    TRoss Guest

    On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:18:52 GMT, "Just Shoot Me"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >lol first of all by mistake I posted this in the support group
    >were my trolls come from. So I guess my trolls that post here will know for
    >sure
    >and more will come. Sorry
    >
    >one of the pictures that gave me a lot of trouble yesterday is
    >on the link below.
    >if anyone is willing I would love to know how you would have made this
    >picture better with out using
    >any of the apartments lighting.
    >I wish I knew how to include the metadata with the pictures so I typed it in
    >on the web site.
    >if you know how I can do that please tell.
    >I will be using Photoshop elements 4.0 for edit
    >
    >Also I would like to include a links page for those of you with web sites.
    >So also please include if I can put your link on my page.
    >
    >
    >http://www.takebetterpix.com/pictures.html
    >
    >
    >thank you
    >
    >JSM
    >
    >OOO helll. My name is Tom
    >I don't know how the hell I did that
    >



    How would I have made this picture better? Other than the obvious
    (take a picture of something more interesting), I would tilt the
    camera so the vertical lines are ... vertical.

    If you must use available light, the quickest and easiest solve the
    exposure problem would be an HDR Exposure Merge. You'll need the full
    version of Photoshop (CS2 or better). HDR isn't available to Elements.

    If you can't/won't upgrade to CS, you can combine multiple exposures
    in PS Elements and increase the dynamic range using layer masks. Set
    your camera on Manual and on a tripod. Set the f/stop and adjust the
    exposure by changing the shutter speed. Expose for the window, the
    kitchen and the hallway. Combine the exposures into one file, each
    exposure level in its own layer, and use layer masks to coax the
    correct overall exposure.

    TR
     
    TRoss, Sep 27, 2007
    #10
  11. Just Shoot Me

    Pat Guest

    On Sep 26, 9:18 pm, "Just Shoot Me" <> wrote:
    > lol first of all by mistake I posted this in the support group
    > were my trolls come from. So I guess my trolls that post here will know for
    > sure
    > and more will come. Sorry
    >
    > one of the pictures that gave me a lot of trouble yesterday is
    > on the link below.
    > if anyone is willing I would love to know how you would have made this
    > picture better with out using
    > any of the apartments lighting.
    > I wish I knew how to include the metadata with the pictures so I typed it in
    > on the web site.
    > if you know how I can do that please tell.
    > I will be using Photoshop elements 4.0 for edit
    >
    > Also I would like to include a links page for those of you with web sites.
    > So also please include if I can put your link on my page.
    >
    > http://www.takebetterpix.com/pictures.html
    >
    > thank you
    >
    > JSM
    >
    > OOO helll. My name is Tom
    > I don't know how the hell I did that


    Tom, like usual I am in the minority here.

    First off you need to do two things. First, correct the parallax and
    then you need to light it up. A couple of flashes will probably do
    it. Then you can get a technically perfect, ugly picture that you
    won't be happy with.

    To be happy, you need about 4 magic boxes -- probably bigger than a
    photocopy paper box. Take the magic boxes (you can get them at any
    magic box store) into the apartment with you. Open the first magic
    box and jam if full of all of the crap in the apartment -- the blue
    cups, the dirty dishes, the stuff on the refrigerator, the stuff on
    the refrigerator door, whatever the white cord is on the floor and
    everything else that's not tied down. When that box is full, put the
    rest into the second box.

    Now open the third magic box and take out a quart of paint that
    matches the back wall on the hallway and paint the darn wall. Paint
    the whole thing and cover up the patches. Put the paint away for
    future use. Now out of the 3rd and 4th magic boxes, take the stuff
    you are going to use to stage the apartment: the fern for the floor,
    the ceramic vase and candle for the counter, a picture for the wall
    near the phone, something for the top of the refrigerator, and
    whatever else you need. You don't want much. Finally, take out a
    sponge and wash that floor. Then wax it so it shines. A dead cat in
    front the fridge might be nice, too.

    Now go to the window and open it up, all of the way. Out of your
    magic box take the last thing -- a curtain for the window. Something
    nice, but simple. Put on the counter for future use. Now clean the
    window. Now open the window all the way. Take the 4 magic boxes and
    push them out the window so they are out of your way. Close the
    window, install the curtain, set up your lighting and you're ready to
    shoot.

    The problem isn't the picture, it is the subject. So go watch some
    home improvement shows and see how to stage the apartment.
     
    Pat, Sep 27, 2007
    #11
  12. Just Shoot Me

    Guest

    On Sep 26, 11:02 pm, "Just Shoot Me" <>
    wrote:

    snip

    >
    > I was just looking at some pictures that used HDR is this something that can
    > be done with Photoshop elements 4.0?
    > I think I have to upgrade to 5.0 so I can use camera raw.
    >
    >


    snip


    I'm not sure what kind of camera you're using, but I have a Canon
    Rebel 350 XT and have no problem shooting raw and using Photoshop
    Elements 4.0.
     
    , Sep 27, 2007
    #12
  13. Just Shoot Me

    Charles Guest

    "Just Shoot Me" <> wrote in message
    news:0yDKi.2492$WT2.256@trndny05...

    Take it at dusk with bounce flash (plus all the interior lights on) and then
    correct lens distortions in post processing.
     
    Charles, Sep 27, 2007
    #13
  14. On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:18:52 GMT, "Just Shoot Me"
    <> wrote:

    >one of the pictures that gave me a lot of trouble yesterday is
    >on the link below.
    >if anyone is willing I would love to know how you would have made this
    >picture better with out using
    >any of the apartments lighting.
    >I wish I knew how to include the metadata with the pictures so I typed it in
    >on the web site.
    >if you know how I can do that please tell.
    >I will be using Photoshop elements 4.0 for edit
    >

    There's a simple trick that I use all the time to "correct" pictures
    like this. I open the picture in VuePrint, reduce the contrast to my
    liking, and then save it to another file (or overwrite the original
    file, if I'm sure I prefer the new one). Reducing the contrast has the
    magical effect of bringing out the detail in the shadow areas, without
    changing the overall brightness.

    Other photo editors probably have a similar setting as VuePrint, but
    I'm not familiar with them.
     
    Alexander Arnakis, Sep 28, 2007
    #14
  15. "Frank ess" <> wrote in message
    news:D...
    > Sorry to know about your recent and future losses. It's sad that we have
    > to outlive our animal companions. In my long and comfortable life, loss of
    > dogs has been one of the major discomforts, more than a dozen episodes by
    > now, and another likely in the next few years.
    >
    >
    > I'm not certain if it's been mentioned, but a common technique for indoor
    > shooting with intruding outdoor light is to make two exposures from the
    > same position, one for inside light, the other for outside. Overlay the
    > two, indoor on top, and erase the indoor area where the valid outdoor
    > information appears. It may not make the apartment more beautiful, but it
    > will surely un-dramatize the glare. Of course you run the risk of showing
    > an unattractive view from the windows.
    >
    > I'd experiment with a lower viewpoint for the camera on those wide-angles
    > with long vistas. Drop it down a foot and see if you like the perspective
    > better. If you are average height for a man, remember that half or more of
    > home-shoppers are female and a bit shorter.
    >
    > Alternatively, raise it up to an exaggerated level. That way it will be an
    > obvious distortion and while it may make things look different - maybe
    > even more attractive - the expectation of correspondence with reality will
    > be diminished, and the viewers who actually go to the place will explain
    > it away themselves.
    >
    >
    > Kind, strong and healing thoughts going out for your dogs.
    >
    > --
    > Frank ess


    Thank you Frank. It is hard to look at my little Jenny the 5lb mini pincher
    and think one day she wont be here.
    Everything worked out ok at the hospital yesterday. I have changed both my
    dogs names to Tri-pod and Flash.
    that $975 for dental work, I hope will their kidneys to work a few more
    years.
    lol I also would have liked to get the real version of photo shop.

    Yes several people have mentioned the 2 exposure technique and no matter how
    many web sites I read I cant seem to get it.
    The clone tool worked ok on some windows, I also copied and pasted in a few
    but those don't always work at my skill level.
    For now I have settled for a little darker and a view, then lighten them up
    in elements. I will try a few test shots EV values. I also feel I need to
    learn more about the metering modes and which ones will work best mostly on
    where the window is in the picture. the widow is not always centered.

    with my P&S canon I used to hold the camera above my head for many shots, I
    was also able to do that with my Nikon and tripod ontop of a desk. I like
    that look alot and yesterday I took a few like that from the top floor over
    looking the lower floor of a duplex apartment. I will try to post a few
    pictures before I go out today and take more.

    thank you again for the thoughts. the other day I was reminded of how lucky
    my dogs are. I was in the store while a lady was buying aspirin for her
    dog. I asked what was wrong with the dog and she said it was throwing up.
    :(. I did mention to her that if the dog has an upset stomach I don't think
    aspirin is wise.
    my heart broke for that little dog.

    Tom
     
    Just Shoot Me, Sep 28, 2007
    #15
  16. "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:37:19 GMT, Just Shoot Me wrote:
    >
    >> besides the lighting the apartment is ugly.
    >> wow I would love one day for my pics to be in a mag but no
    >> I am into real estate.

    >
    > I know, from previous threads. My point was that for your
    > purposes, photo perfection isn't a reasonable or desirable goal. I
    > didn't know if that's what your were aiming for was since you didn't
    > say very much about why you weren't pleased by the photo.



    I believe photo prefection can have 2 totally different outcomes depending
    upon
    what it is you are looking to do or show.
    for me and it is my goal, photo perfection means setting up the camera
    correctly
    for what I have framed in the lens and knowing what to frame. that means
    for me knowing the right metering modes, apetures
    shutter speed and tripod level. just to name a few.
    I was not pleased with the photo because I guess I had an ugly model at the
    same time it would be wrong of me to think that I actually had the camera
    set up as good as most if not all here would have done.
    then again perhaps I did get a really good middle ground.

    as long as I try my best I am happy.



    >
    > Well, you know your business better than I do, but making such
    > "fixes" could be counterproductive. First, I'd think that the best
    > fix would be to change the perspective by playing with a different
    > camera position and lens focal length, than by using Photoshop.


    I agree, while I will always need a photo editor. I want to continue
    learning
    and know how to adjust the camera better everyday.






    And
    > since practically nobody would sign a lease based only on seeing
    > pictures of the apartment,


    I actually have had that happen a few times. My wife and I have a large
    following
    of people that do recommened us. mostly because most in this business
    around here are not very honest
    and we also have about 30 buildings that are exclusive to us.

    >I'd rather have a poorer picture generate
    > less initial interest in the apartment, but have the prospective
    > buyer's expectations exceeded when visiting the apartment than to
    > have a better looking photo, only to disappoint when the prospective
    > buyer gets a chance to visit the apartment.
    >


    I understand and agree.
    how I would have liked that picture to look is how it would have looked if
    all the lights
    gave the same kind of light. No body has complained so far.

    Tom
     
    Just Shoot Me, Sep 28, 2007
    #16
  17. "Pat" <> wrote in message

    > Tom, like usual I am in the minority here.
    >
    > First off you need to do two things. First, correct the parallax and
    > then you need to light it up. A couple of flashes will probably do
    > it. Then you can get a technically perfect, ugly picture that you
    > won't be happy with.
    >
    > To be happy, you need about 4 magic boxes -- probably bigger than a
    > photocopy paper box. Take the magic boxes (you can get them at any
    > magic box store) into the apartment with you. Open the first magic
    > box and jam if full of all of the crap in the apartment -- the blue
    > cups, the dirty dishes, the stuff on the refrigerator, the stuff on
    > the refrigerator door, whatever the white cord is on the floor and
    > everything else that's not tied down. When that box is full, put the
    > rest into the second box.
    >
    > Now open the third magic box and take out a quart of paint that
    > matches the back wall on the hallway and paint the darn wall. Paint
    > the whole thing and cover up the patches. Put the paint away for
    > future use. Now out of the 3rd and 4th magic boxes, take the stuff
    > you are going to use to stage the apartment: the fern for the floor,
    > the ceramic vase and candle for the counter, a picture for the wall
    > near the phone, something for the top of the refrigerator, and
    > whatever else you need. You don't want much. Finally, take out a
    > sponge and wash that floor. Then wax it so it shines. A dead cat in
    > front the fridge might be nice, too.
    >
    > Now go to the window and open it up, all of the way. Out of your
    > magic box take the last thing -- a curtain for the window. Something
    > nice, but simple. Put on the counter for future use. Now clean the
    > window. Now open the window all the way. Take the 4 magic boxes and
    > push them out the window so they are out of your way. Close the
    > window, install the curtain, set up your lighting and you're ready to
    > shoot.
    >
    > The problem isn't the picture, it is the subject. So go watch some
    > home improvement shows and see how to stage the apartment.
    >


    I was very worried about my dogs not waking up yesterday and this post
    did make me smile, thanks.

    just for the record.. that was after I did a lot of cleaning in the
    kitchen, living and every bedroom.
    your ideas are great and if I didn't use a motorcycle to get around and have
    to walk up sometimes 5 flights several times
    I would do most of what you said.

    Tom
     
    Just Shoot Me, Sep 28, 2007
    #17
  18. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sep 26, 11:02 pm, "Just Shoot Me" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > snip
    >
    >>
    >> I was just looking at some pictures that used HDR is this something that
    >> can
    >> be done with Photoshop elements 4.0?
    >> I think I have to upgrade to 5.0 so I can use camera raw.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > snip
    >
    >
    > I'm not sure what kind of camera you're using, but I have a Canon
    > Rebel 350 XT and have no problem shooting raw and using Photoshop
    > Elements 4.0.


    I have the Canon 40D. the Camera Raw on 4.0 does not support my new camera.
    my camera did come with something that handles raw but not sure if
    converting it in that program to Jpeg and then opening it in elements is
    better than
    just having the camera take the pic as jpeg to begin with.
    being I do need expenses I do feel or hope the full version of Photoshop
    will be do able
    soon or by next summer when my business picks up again lol.

    Tom
     
    Just Shoot Me, Sep 28, 2007
    #18
  19. "Charles" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Just Shoot Me" <> wrote in message
    > news:0yDKi.2492$WT2.256@trndny05...
    >
    > Take it at dusk with bounce flash (plus all the interior lights on) and
    > then correct lens distortions in post processing.


    with the different kinds of lighting I couldn't match the WB. and my skill
    level
    in elements doesn't know how to correct what I ended up with.
    but I do have several pictures like that and will try to post them later.

    thank you

    Tom
     
    Just Shoot Me, Sep 28, 2007
    #19
  20. Just Shoot Me

    TRoss Guest

    On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:53:53 GMT, "Just Shoot Me"
    <> wrote:

    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sep 26, 11:02 pm, "Just Shoot Me" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> snip
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I was just looking at some pictures that used HDR is this something that
    >>> can
    >>> be done with Photoshop elements 4.0?
    >>> I think I have to upgrade to 5.0 so I can use camera raw.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> snip
    >>
    >>
    >> I'm not sure what kind of camera you're using, but I have a Canon
    >> Rebel 350 XT and have no problem shooting raw and using Photoshop
    >> Elements 4.0.

    >
    >I have the Canon 40D. the Camera Raw on 4.0 does not support my new camera.
    >my camera did come with something that handles raw but not sure if
    >converting it in that program to Jpeg and then opening it in elements is
    >better than
    >just having the camera take the pic as jpeg to begin with.
    >being I do need expenses I do feel or hope the full version of Photoshop
    >will be do able
    >soon or by next summer when my business picks up again lol.
    >
    >Tom
    >



    Or you could convert the RAW file to DNG - the DNG Converter v4.2
    supports the 40D. That will give you a RAW file that can be opened in
    PSE 4.0.

    www.adobe.com/support/downloads/thankyou.jsp?ftpID=3738&fileID=3498

    TR
     
    TRoss, Sep 28, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Niko

    Which would you rather have and why? sony 390 or Pana DVC200

    Niko, Feb 15, 2004, in forum: Professional Video Production
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    214
  2. Jerry
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    168
    Jerry
    Oct 9, 2003
  3. Mike Warren

    How could I have made these pictures better?

    Mike Warren, Aug 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    385
    Ray Fischer
    Aug 27, 2005
  4. jazu

    Rebel XT, made in Japan, made in Thailand

    jazu, Dec 8, 2006, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    238
    John Turco
    Dec 12, 2006
  5. Mark F
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    490
    Noons
    Jul 5, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page