Perth Bell Tower

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Marli, Sep 14, 2003.

  1. Marli

    Marli Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. Like it :)
    David in Perth, Sep 14, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Marli

    Ubiquitous Guest

    Not bad at all, but I'd adjust the levels a bit, looks overexposed... its
    not that it actually WAS overexposed - it was a correct exposure.. its just
    that it looks a bit too bright to me.
    Ubiquitous, Sep 14, 2003
  4. Marli

    Marli Guest

    Thanks for the feedback. Do youthink they were both overexposed? or just no.
    Marli, Sep 14, 2003
  5. Marli

    Ubiquitous Guest

    Both look fairly similar... just a bit washed out. The camera did expose
    correctly, its just that the scene looks more natural with the levels
    adjusted a bit.

    In my opinion this one looks a bit less washed out and more natural. Others
    may disagree ;)
    Ubiquitous, Sep 14, 2003
  6. Marli

    Cameron Guest

    Cameron, Sep 14, 2003
  7. Marli

    Ubiquitous Guest

    Yeah, first glance and you might think that having everything nice and
    bright is great, and not all photography has to look 'normal' of course, but
    you have to ask youself which is more aesthetically pleasing. Everyone has a
    different opinion, and for that matter, everyone has a different monitor.
    Cheaper/older monitors generally don't hold the dark shades very well, so
    you may think it looks balanced but on everyone else's monitors it is too
    bright. Just a thought. Have a look at the picture on a different computer
    to compare.

    But the brigher the exposure, the more of the scene you're overexposing and
    burning the highlights of. You can always brighten a scene with levels
    afterwards, but you can never reclaim the areas you've burned out.
    Ubiquitous, Sep 14, 2003
  8. Marli

    Marli Guest

    I took some of that exposure but didnt like it as much. But with a second
    look maybe I do

    Marli, Sep 14, 2003
  9. Marli

    Marli Guest

    How did you manage to have a .jpg file end up as a bitmap at 701Kb/794Kb?
    And how did you hide the source html code? Trade secret??>>>

    mmm Not sure what you are getting at. I took it as a .JPG worked on it
    saving it as a .tiff then saved it a a small .jpg for the web. It was never
    a BMP. There was no HTML involved.
    Marli, Sep 14, 2003
  10. Marli

    Marli Guest

    Yep I know what you mean, I printed it out at A4 and it looks good, but I
    also like your changes. I might tone it down a bit and print another out.
    Marli, Sep 14, 2003
  11. Marli

    Ubiquitous Guest

    Not sure what drugs you're on :) There is no source code because it isn't an
    html page, its a jpg file.
    Ubiquitous, Sep 14, 2003
  12. Marli

    Cameron Guest

    Good point!!!

    However, if you try and save the pic it saves as a .bmp of over 700Kb....
    any ideas????

    Cameron, Sep 14, 2003
  13. Marli

    Marli Guest

    Thats at your end. Just right click and "Save Picture as" a .jpg

    Out of interest what are you using it for?
    Marli, Sep 14, 2003
  14. Marli

    Richard vd Guest

    This is a known issue with Internet Explorer. Clear your temporary Internet
    file directory out and then save the file.

    Richard vd, Sep 14, 2003
  15. Marli

    Cameron Guest

    I am selling it to a tourism magazine... only kidding..

    It just took a long time for me to open it and I was wondering the file size
    of it and I couldn't see it through [right click] properties so I saved it
    and checked it there.....

    Cameron, Sep 14, 2003
  16. Marli

    Cameron Guest

    Thanks Richard... Will give that a shot!!

    Cameron, Sep 14, 2003
  17. Marli

    VH-CBR Guest

    This used to happen to me ALL THE TIME .. but since I ran the upgrade the
    instance of it occurring has decreased dramatically

    (damn microsoft)
    VH-CBR, Sep 14, 2003
  18. Marli

    Cameron Guest

    Well, it sure fixed it!!! (Thanks Richard vd and VH-CBR)

    Cameron, Sep 14, 2003
  19. Marli

    Marli Guest

    Once you post it on the web it is open slather. :)

    Marli, Sep 15, 2003
  20. In reply to the posting from "Ubiquitous" <>
    which was dated Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:02:46 +1000:

    Calibrating between camera/scanner, monitor and printer is enough to drive anyone insane
    and as you say, we all have different ideas of what we like.
    The sky in Marli's original seemed too bright but Ubiquitous' darkening hid subtle
    highlights in the rest of the photo.
    Here's my effort at toning down the image and adding a bit of sharpening to enhance detail
    To each their own ;o)
    Dennis with 2 N's, Sep 15, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.