Posts
Frank Field commented on my use of Lightroom, saying he's gone the opposite way - using Photoshop for his editing.
Let me make it clear - I was referring to the use of Lightroom for organizing my images, not editing them. More specifically, after watching the Luminous Landscape tutorial, I am even more convinced that the point of Lightroom is to make editing easier, not better, and as I've said many times, fine art photography is always about better. Easier is a distant second.
I do pay attention to easier - the whole digital workflow is what has made me sufficiently productive to get published and write books and for someone who has to edit a lot of images, Lightroom may be exactly what they need.
For example, they show editing of an image of a nearby hillside and distant hills. They want to balance the brightness of the two and use two different gradients, and it gets close, but you can still see that the blend is not perfect. Then they use local adjustments and fancy masking, and still don't fix all of the problems that the gradients caused. I could have fixed the whole thing in seconds with a curves adjustment layer and skip the gradients. OK, I have some skill in using gradients, but I argue in my second book, From Camera To Computer, that it is better to use a few tools really well, than dozens with less skill - especially when working on one image as opposed to dozens or even hundreds. It's the difference between getting a single image fantastic and getting a whole wedding shoot really good.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Lightroom
After procrastinating for years, I'm determined to start using Lightroom to catalogue my images properly. A new computer and even more hard drives has pretty much forced me into this.
I'm almost finished the superb Lightroom 3 Tutorial Videos from Luminous Landscape, more than 8 hours of invaluable information. I'm starting with the importing of all my raw files (some I haven't seen in years) and most importantly, adding keywords to them so all the images from each imported folder can be found, then more keywords for smaller groups of images.
I'm also looking into using Lightroom and an add-on website publisher from Photographers-toolbox to link to my Rapidweaver website - to automate updating my web images through lightroom and to better control the size of images on various sizes of screen.
I'm almost finished the superb Lightroom 3 Tutorial Videos from Luminous Landscape, more than 8 hours of invaluable information. I'm starting with the importing of all my raw files (some I haven't seen in years) and most importantly, adding keywords to them so all the images from each imported folder can be found, then more keywords for smaller groups of images.
I'm also looking into using Lightroom and an add-on website publisher from Photographers-toolbox to link to my Rapidweaver website - to automate updating my web images through lightroom and to better control the size of images on various sizes of screen.
Video On Youtube
I've just uploaded my first video to youtube. It's short and simply describes the three books I have written, but it shows me out photographing at one of my favourite local spots. You might be slightly entertained.
Can't sort out the link from the office but if you do a youtube search for George Barr Fine Art Photography, you'll find it.
Can't sort out the link from the office but if you do a youtube search for George Barr Fine Art Photography, you'll find it.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Heating Plant Reflection
I tried blocking the reflection with my hat but liked the version with the reflection. The dark circle bottom centre is not my head - it's the front of the 17-40 mm. lens and camera body. The lens was touching the window.
Snow Plow
You may know that I like trains, both model and full size. Was in Banff with our office staff and had a couple of hours free time. Not art, just interesting to me.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Book Sales
Sales of "Why Photographs Work" have been very good with only 780 of the books left at the distributor. I sent off the proofs for the second printing, different printer.
For about half a day, the book was # 430 at amazon.com and # 4 photography book and in Canada, amazon had it at # 76 overall for a day., all this without any major online promotion other than the amazon reviews, which have been excellent, 6 fives, 1 four, and one 3 (he thought too simple).
I think I got it just about right - pleasant to read rather than work, yet informative. Sure the best read photographers are probably only going to pick up a few points in the whole book, but hopefully even they will enjoy reading it.
Remember that the book is meant to be enjoyed by non photographers too, and that also seems to be the case.
Happy New Year
For about half a day, the book was # 430 at amazon.com and # 4 photography book and in Canada, amazon had it at # 76 overall for a day., all this without any major online promotion other than the amazon reviews, which have been excellent, 6 fives, 1 four, and one 3 (he thought too simple).
I think I got it just about right - pleasant to read rather than work, yet informative. Sure the best read photographers are probably only going to pick up a few points in the whole book, but hopefully even they will enjoy reading it.
Remember that the book is meant to be enjoyed by non photographers too, and that also seems to be the case.
Happy New Year
Getting Some Exercise
While the obvious thing to do is hike with a large backpack, it is -20 C and I work for a living and can't always be out photographing - this business of writing books consumes a lot of time, which reminds me, the publisher wants me to do a second edition of "Take Your Photography To The Next Level".
I refuse to do that if there isn't significant new content, more images, new and useful text and improvements well beyond fixing the odd typo - so many hours of work.
Anyway, I thought I'd tell you of my latest purchase, an eliptical. I spent a bit more than I wanted to and a lot less than I could have, but it's solid, went together beautifully, and I'm wiped and sweaty after my first workout. Actually it was really the third workout - the first being getting the thing into the basement, the second assembling it.
It's a Horizon CE 9.2 - which comes from Canadian Tire - and is roughly equivalent to the Horizon EX-79, albeit with a heavier flywheel (23 lb. instead of 17).
The real test will be to use it regularly - a treadmill I purchased years ago quickly became a clotheshorse and progressively a cause of marital friction.
Wish me luck, and check in a month for a report card on both machine and progress - that should motivate me.
I refuse to do that if there isn't significant new content, more images, new and useful text and improvements well beyond fixing the odd typo - so many hours of work.
Anyway, I thought I'd tell you of my latest purchase, an eliptical. I spent a bit more than I wanted to and a lot less than I could have, but it's solid, went together beautifully, and I'm wiped and sweaty after my first workout. Actually it was really the third workout - the first being getting the thing into the basement, the second assembling it.
It's a Horizon CE 9.2 - which comes from Canadian Tire - and is roughly equivalent to the Horizon EX-79, albeit with a heavier flywheel (23 lb. instead of 17).
The real test will be to use it regularly - a treadmill I purchased years ago quickly became a clotheshorse and progressively a cause of marital friction.
Wish me luck, and check in a month for a report card on both machine and progress - that should motivate me.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Mea Culpa - on Profiling
Oops - sure I had all the right settings in print setup - but I forgot to turn off Photoshop does colour in the main printer dialog box. Shit...
I'll reprofile the Hahemeule in the next 24 hours and publish the results.
Hope everyone had a nice Christmas. Had planned to post a Christmas Card, but yet again blogger can't upload images - this has been more down than working over the last several months and they still don't have it working - Mac and Firefox for me. I'd switch but then I'd have to maintain all the archived articles, all > 1000 of them.
I'll reprofile the Hahemeule in the next 24 hours and publish the results.
Hope everyone had a nice Christmas. Had planned to post a Christmas Card, but yet again blogger can't upload images - this has been more down than working over the last several months and they still don't have it working - Mac and Firefox for me. I'd switch but then I'd have to maintain all the archived articles, all > 1000 of them.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Print Darkness/Contrast/Tonality
Don't know about you, but for every time I have worried about print colour, I have worried 100 times more often about the brightness of print tones and even more. This was a problem with canned printer profiles, it remains a problem with home made profiles using my Color Munki - and although I don't have the $2000 to test fancier profiling equipment, I fully believe it will be a problem with the big guns too - after all that's what was used to make those profiles supplied by the printer and or paper manufacturers.
My 'standard' paper is Epson Enhanced Matte (Ultra super duper - or whatever they are calling it this week). it is so because it is easily available, not to stiff for stacking up multiple sheets in the feeder, has a good surface and behaves well. It even lets me pin up several prints in a stack on my examining room walls and I frequently catch my patients checking out the latest images and what's underneath as well - and that's just fine.
Yes, glossy paper can look nicer, especially if there are a lot of dark tones in the image, but with modern inks even matte papers look darn nice and are a heck of a lot easier to look at without dealing with spurious reflections.
Behind glass, 90% of the difference between matte and glossy paper disappears anyway (and I'm not talking frosted glass here).
Today I had to make some prints for sale. Although enhanced matte looks fine, it is thin and tends to warp over time behind the matte and I prefer to use a proper art quality paper when I'm selling a print. I happened to be out of my usual Moab Entrada Bright White and found a box of Hahnemeule Photo Rag. I ran off a profile test on it (version 2 icc profile to keep my mac and snow leopard happy - Color Munki lets you default to version two type profiles in preferences).
I was careful to set color matching to epson from colorsynch and then turn off epson adjustments in printer settings and had no diff. making the profiles.
But wow, the prints were way off - not in colour - that looked spot on, but in contrast and overall darkness - way too much of both. I'd had no trouble with Entrada, no trouble with enhanced matte, and only a little trouble with Harman FBAL gloss but this was unuseable results.
I eventually approximated the right tones through use of a compicated curves layer, customized to each print - but this shouldn't be necessary.
So, how do problems like this happen?
1) the monitor is too bright - this is far and away the biggest problem for many people.
2) double profiling - somehow both photoshop and the printer are adjusting the colours, instead of the correct strategy of letting photoshop doing it - but I'd been careful about that (see above).
3) too bright a viewing light - you can buy proper viewing lights but they are typically at least twice as bright as room light which is just plain wrong, and besides, the light is usually the wrong colour. It isn't standard, or warm fluorescent bulb temp, nor north window. It often is closer to sunlight, which we go out of our way to keep our prints away from. It rather depends on whether you believe it is better to be consistent and always wrong or random and occasionally wrong. I happen to view my prints by fluoresent because the bulbs match my office where I do most of my print viewing anyway. When I used to sell prints at the farmers market, they were being seen by mercury vapour (which oddly didn't seem to hurt the images, but made cream paper look downright yellow).
5) using the wrong paper setting. When in the printer dialog box you go to printer settings and change from glossy to semi gloss to matte to fine art - what you are changing is the amount of ink that is laid down - some surfaces can use more ink than others. Overall, while this does affect the brightness of the print, there should not be a problem if the setting you used for making the profile matches the setting you use when making your real prints. Of coures, if you are using a canned profile, it is absolutely essential that you match your paper setting to the one used in making the profile - and paper manufacturers are not always very clear about what that should be - though it is better now than a few years ago when it didn't seem to occur to them to bother mentioning such a crucial piece of information - and you wondered why people started making their own profiles).
6) you are printing black and white and using the advanced black and white driver for your Epson printer - as this totally overrides your profiles, you might as well have not bothered. There's a good reason they offer light, medium, dark, darker and bloody damn dark - it's because you have no control over the tonality without using these settings.
and more)of course, if you haven't profiled your monitor, all this is moot and you are a lost cause.
Assuming you have not committed and of the above faux pas - then so far, the only practical solutions I have found are the following.
1) pick papers that behave well for you - the Hahnemeule didn't for me - not that it can't make beautiful prints, it can - but was far more work this morning than it needed to be. Your experience is likely to be entirely different - you MUST do your own testing - this could be the perfect paper for you. These are papers that when you run test images after profiling, require the least possible adjustments in brightness to get a good result.
2) take advantage of printer proofing in Photoshop (under the View menu) to see what you are goijng to get - with most papers it has been very helpful in predicting the final result.
3) no matter how good your profiles, how careful your procedures, how expensive your equipment, if you are fussy about your results, you will have to make multiple prints to get an image of the right brightness. The closer your profiling can get things right, the fewer 'test' (read throwaway) prints that you will have to make. I can generally get it right in two or three prints - ie. the third print is what I want - this of course after making hundreds of changes to an apparently good image on screen before I even get to the printing stage. Rarely I get it in one, occasionally it takes half a dozen prints to really get a print that matches what I have on screen - not because my equipment is bad - it isn't, but because I care about the results (read fussy, ok, very fussy).
It is possible to create a curve to make adjustments, but my experience is that no single curve works for all images on a single paper.
Remember that no one will ever care as much about our print quality as we ourselves do, both as an individual and as a group of photographers.
Typical customers can't even see the difference between warm and neutral papers, never mind the difference between ultrachrome and ultrachrome K3 and Ultrachrome Vivid. We sure know though.
I'll be interested in how others have solved the brightness and contrast issues.
My 'standard' paper is Epson Enhanced Matte (Ultra super duper - or whatever they are calling it this week). it is so because it is easily available, not to stiff for stacking up multiple sheets in the feeder, has a good surface and behaves well. It even lets me pin up several prints in a stack on my examining room walls and I frequently catch my patients checking out the latest images and what's underneath as well - and that's just fine.
Yes, glossy paper can look nicer, especially if there are a lot of dark tones in the image, but with modern inks even matte papers look darn nice and are a heck of a lot easier to look at without dealing with spurious reflections.
Behind glass, 90% of the difference between matte and glossy paper disappears anyway (and I'm not talking frosted glass here).
Today I had to make some prints for sale. Although enhanced matte looks fine, it is thin and tends to warp over time behind the matte and I prefer to use a proper art quality paper when I'm selling a print. I happened to be out of my usual Moab Entrada Bright White and found a box of Hahnemeule Photo Rag. I ran off a profile test on it (version 2 icc profile to keep my mac and snow leopard happy - Color Munki lets you default to version two type profiles in preferences).
I was careful to set color matching to epson from colorsynch and then turn off epson adjustments in printer settings and had no diff. making the profiles.
But wow, the prints were way off - not in colour - that looked spot on, but in contrast and overall darkness - way too much of both. I'd had no trouble with Entrada, no trouble with enhanced matte, and only a little trouble with Harman FBAL gloss but this was unuseable results.
I eventually approximated the right tones through use of a compicated curves layer, customized to each print - but this shouldn't be necessary.
So, how do problems like this happen?
1) the monitor is too bright - this is far and away the biggest problem for many people.
2) double profiling - somehow both photoshop and the printer are adjusting the colours, instead of the correct strategy of letting photoshop doing it - but I'd been careful about that (see above).
3) too bright a viewing light - you can buy proper viewing lights but they are typically at least twice as bright as room light which is just plain wrong, and besides, the light is usually the wrong colour. It isn't standard, or warm fluorescent bulb temp, nor north window. It often is closer to sunlight, which we go out of our way to keep our prints away from. It rather depends on whether you believe it is better to be consistent and always wrong or random and occasionally wrong. I happen to view my prints by fluoresent because the bulbs match my office where I do most of my print viewing anyway. When I used to sell prints at the farmers market, they were being seen by mercury vapour (which oddly didn't seem to hurt the images, but made cream paper look downright yellow).
5) using the wrong paper setting. When in the printer dialog box you go to printer settings and change from glossy to semi gloss to matte to fine art - what you are changing is the amount of ink that is laid down - some surfaces can use more ink than others. Overall, while this does affect the brightness of the print, there should not be a problem if the setting you used for making the profile matches the setting you use when making your real prints. Of coures, if you are using a canned profile, it is absolutely essential that you match your paper setting to the one used in making the profile - and paper manufacturers are not always very clear about what that should be - though it is better now than a few years ago when it didn't seem to occur to them to bother mentioning such a crucial piece of information - and you wondered why people started making their own profiles).
6) you are printing black and white and using the advanced black and white driver for your Epson printer - as this totally overrides your profiles, you might as well have not bothered. There's a good reason they offer light, medium, dark, darker and bloody damn dark - it's because you have no control over the tonality without using these settings.
and more)of course, if you haven't profiled your monitor, all this is moot and you are a lost cause.
Assuming you have not committed and of the above faux pas - then so far, the only practical solutions I have found are the following.
1) pick papers that behave well for you - the Hahnemeule didn't for me - not that it can't make beautiful prints, it can - but was far more work this morning than it needed to be. Your experience is likely to be entirely different - you MUST do your own testing - this could be the perfect paper for you. These are papers that when you run test images after profiling, require the least possible adjustments in brightness to get a good result.
2) take advantage of printer proofing in Photoshop (under the View menu) to see what you are goijng to get - with most papers it has been very helpful in predicting the final result.
3) no matter how good your profiles, how careful your procedures, how expensive your equipment, if you are fussy about your results, you will have to make multiple prints to get an image of the right brightness. The closer your profiling can get things right, the fewer 'test' (read throwaway) prints that you will have to make. I can generally get it right in two or three prints - ie. the third print is what I want - this of course after making hundreds of changes to an apparently good image on screen before I even get to the printing stage. Rarely I get it in one, occasionally it takes half a dozen prints to really get a print that matches what I have on screen - not because my equipment is bad - it isn't, but because I care about the results (read fussy, ok, very fussy).
It is possible to create a curve to make adjustments, but my experience is that no single curve works for all images on a single paper.
Remember that no one will ever care as much about our print quality as we ourselves do, both as an individual and as a group of photographers.
Typical customers can't even see the difference between warm and neutral papers, never mind the difference between ultrachrome and ultrachrome K3 and Ultrachrome Vivid. We sure know though.
I'll be interested in how others have solved the brightness and contrast issues.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Dis and Dat
Why Photographs Work is now out and orderable from the major online booksellers and instore at real ones too. It's gathering excellent reviews so apparently we're not the only ones who think it's a beautiful book. We're scrambling to arrange a reprint asap.
Mark Dubovoy had written an article for Luminous Landscape promoting the use of medium format. I don't disagree with what Mark says, but I do think there are some points that are important to make.
Pros use medium format because:
1) they often are asked to make huge prints
2) paying customers like to get noseprints on detailed lanscape pictures
3) the equipment is tax deductable
4) the equipment differentiates them from the masses - an important marketing tool (as opposed to an ego boost - pros are too busy for that nonsense)
And there are other reasons. Those of us who do photography for the love of it instead of putting food on the table can afford the time to stitch and blend our way to good photographs, and if the images look better at 13X19 than 40X60, who cares. That said, more than a few serious amateurs are going to be looking at the Pentax 645D.
One of the most useful and powerful tools for doing landscape and industrial photography is live view - totally absent from medium format. Mark talks of the problems of camera misalignment, yet he has to squint into a tiny ground glass if he wants to focus and tilt - while I simply move the magnified view to the corner and check the focus on the sensor, not a substitute - using live view. I think in a few years people will find it hard to believe people ever struggled with substitutes.
We live in interesting times - DPReview has rated the Pentax K5 as the top medium priced dSLR, topping both Nikon and Canon - we live in interesting times.
It's holiday season, Christmas for some of us. May you all thrive and find the images you want.
Mark Dubovoy had written an article for Luminous Landscape promoting the use of medium format. I don't disagree with what Mark says, but I do think there are some points that are important to make.
Pros use medium format because:
1) they often are asked to make huge prints
2) paying customers like to get noseprints on detailed lanscape pictures
3) the equipment is tax deductable
4) the equipment differentiates them from the masses - an important marketing tool (as opposed to an ego boost - pros are too busy for that nonsense)
And there are other reasons. Those of us who do photography for the love of it instead of putting food on the table can afford the time to stitch and blend our way to good photographs, and if the images look better at 13X19 than 40X60, who cares. That said, more than a few serious amateurs are going to be looking at the Pentax 645D.
One of the most useful and powerful tools for doing landscape and industrial photography is live view - totally absent from medium format. Mark talks of the problems of camera misalignment, yet he has to squint into a tiny ground glass if he wants to focus and tilt - while I simply move the magnified view to the corner and check the focus on the sensor, not a substitute - using live view. I think in a few years people will find it hard to believe people ever struggled with substitutes.
We live in interesting times - DPReview has rated the Pentax K5 as the top medium priced dSLR, topping both Nikon and Canon - we live in interesting times.
It's holiday season, Christmas for some of us. May you all thrive and find the images you want.
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Amazon Have 'Why Photographs Work'
At last, Amazon list the book as in stock, albeit with a warning about taking an extra day or two - I think they are actually between the distributor and the amazon warehouse as we speak but that means that people should have the book within the week.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Books Are At The Distributor
Have just heard from Rockynook that the books are now at the distributor. They then pass the books onto the various retail outfits, including the biggies like Amazon. Don't konw if this will result in a change in the status on Amazon but they should have the books within the week.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Why Photographs Work - The Book Has Landed
Good news. The books cleared customs in New York earlier this week, a few days late but are already on truck on the way to the distributor. It will take a week at the most to get to Amazon and other retail sellers, so, it should be possible to get a copy of the book just in time for Christmas. Hopefully Amazon will update their release date info within the week.
As of now, no one else has read the book, not even the photographers, who only got to see thier own section (ok, the editors have), so I am both excited and scared, waiting to hear what people think of the book. Those who have flipped through the book agree it's beautiful and I feel good about the images I chose for the book. About my writing I'm less secure. I think it's good, that I have useful insights into the images and what makes them work, but it's a bit like introducing your new bride to friends and family, you so desperately want them to think well of your mate, or in this case, my baby.
As of now, no one else has read the book, not even the photographers, who only got to see thier own section (ok, the editors have), so I am both excited and scared, waiting to hear what people think of the book. Those who have flipped through the book agree it's beautiful and I feel good about the images I chose for the book. About my writing I'm less secure. I think it's good, that I have useful insights into the images and what makes them work, but it's a bit like introducing your new bride to friends and family, you so desperately want them to think well of your mate, or in this case, my baby.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Tomasz Gudzowaty
thank you to Marcin for pointing out the work of Tomasz - well worth exploring his site and images.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Paul Caponigro Portfolio
The entire current View Camera magazine is a single portfolio of 59 of Paul's images, reprinted with excellent quality. A must have for any serious photographer. I just hope the magazine printed enough of them.
You need this issue.
You need this issue.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Date Of Publication for Why Photographs Work
Below are the two emails I received earlier today from my publisher, first confirming our most up to to date shipping information - sounds like the shipment of books is somewhere mid Atlantic as we speak.
The second attempts to explain the reasonable caution that amazon takes in predicting availability dates - I think they are entirely right to do so - so, with a little luck they have in fact been overly cautious and within two weeks (as I predicted) they will be emailing everyone to say that a definite shipping date is on and the books will arrive in time for Christmas after all.
I do so wish I could share it with you know, but those two chapters on amazon will just have to whet your appetite.
Best,
George
Hi George,
We just heard from the freight forwarder and the shipment is due to to arrive in the harbor on Nov 25, and at Ingram by Nov 29/30. Our December release date looks secure. I don't know why in the world Amazon would send such a notice. The due date on Amazon is 12/28, but we hope the books will be shipping to customers by the 15th. I am going to contact the O'Reilly sales rep for Amazon to see if he can shed some light on this.
Thanks,
Joanie
I just got off the phone with John (O'Reilly sales rep for Amazon). He said that is supposing the following:
– The due date had slipped at one point from Oct to Dec. Amazon's algorithm notes a loss of confidence.
– With the holiday season coming up, they want to under-promise and then hope to over-deliver.
– Once the book is in stock, they very well may send another email saying "good news, the book is in stock and is on the way".
Basically, what Amazon does is out of our control. I am just happy that the book will ship in December regardless of what Amazon predicts.
This is a pretty lousy explanation, but that's the best we can get.
Joanie
The second attempts to explain the reasonable caution that amazon takes in predicting availability dates - I think they are entirely right to do so - so, with a little luck they have in fact been overly cautious and within two weeks (as I predicted) they will be emailing everyone to say that a definite shipping date is on and the books will arrive in time for Christmas after all.
I do so wish I could share it with you know, but those two chapters on amazon will just have to whet your appetite.
Best,
George
Hi George,
We just heard from the freight forwarder and the shipment is due to to arrive in the harbor on Nov 25, and at Ingram by Nov 29/30. Our December release date looks secure. I don't know why in the world Amazon would send such a notice. The due date on Amazon is 12/28, but we hope the books will be shipping to customers by the 15th. I am going to contact the O'Reilly sales rep for Amazon to see if he can shed some light on this.
Thanks,
Joanie
I just got off the phone with John (O'Reilly sales rep for Amazon). He said that is supposing the following:
– The due date had slipped at one point from Oct to Dec. Amazon's algorithm notes a loss of confidence.
– With the holiday season coming up, they want to under-promise and then hope to over-deliver.
– Once the book is in stock, they very well may send another email saying "good news, the book is in stock and is on the way".
Basically, what Amazon does is out of our control. I am just happy that the book will ship in December regardless of what Amazon predicts.
This is a pretty lousy explanation, but that's the best we can get.
Joanie
Thursday, November 11, 2010
I Have The Book
Amazon.com has a 'look inside' of the first two chapters.
It should be in book shops in about three weeks and is orderable now.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Cave Roof
Another image from Writing On Stone. This one was a focus blend, tripod mounted, me wrapped around the tripod and inside the cave. Later I took some handheld shots because I couldn't get the tripod close enough to the side of the cave. Focus blending in Helicon Focus, local contrast enhancement over a small part of the image only via Akvis Enhancer, colour tinting by Layers, solid fill, colour blend mode.
Writing On Stone Provincial Park
Friday, October 15, 2010
Nighttime Street Scene In Victoria
This would have been crap in colour, crap during daylight, but nice with a bit of editing and judicious use of two black and white conversion layers to get the two doorways left and right to roughly match in tone. Akvis Enhancer lightened the image and increased local contrast so I darkened it after (after all it was supposed to be a night scene). The sidewalk was way too dark compared to the rest of the image so I lightened it. I opened up the dark upper right corner again to blend well.
Below is the original image as recorded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)