«

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" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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!

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?

"Somebody" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:46fb1424$0$14132$(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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

"ASAAR" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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 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

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.

"Just Shoot Me" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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

"Just Shoot Me" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:_2FKi.6222$Pc3.212@trndny09...
>
> "Somebody" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:46fb1424$0$14132$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 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!

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:18:52 GMT, "Just Shoot Me"
<(E-Mail Removed)> 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