|
|
|
Myles King
{K:791} 4/14/2004
|
For those saying the picture is over exposed, I actually used PS to make it this way. The original I was trying to copy is very similar in the way it is blownout. I wish I could find the original! Thanks for everyone's comments!
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Cubbage
{K:104} 4/14/2004
|
I agree with Dirck, I have found with digital photography, it's better to be slightly underexposed. If you have photoshop use the dodge tool to slightly brighten up areas that need it. But still overall it's a great shot. Danny
|
|
|
|
|
Dirck DuFlon
{K:35779} 4/9/2004
|
I like the overall effect here, Myles, but I have to disagree with Ade about the loss of detail in the archway framing the door (very nicely, by the way). There are some blown-out areas on the bricks and, mostly, on the ground and the keystone at the top of the arch. The intense highlights are a good idea, kind of dream-like, but the keystone really is completely gone. This is a really tough shot given the very bright light on the foreground and the shadowed doorway behind it, especially with the limited 'latitude' of digital cameras. I think a little more contrast in the shaded area would help differentiate it more. Maybe you could also try a version where it image just dissolves to white at the edges?
|
|
|
|
|
ade mcfade
{K:12388} 4/8/2004
|
yes - good enough to be in a text book.
If a cricketer hits a "text book" cover drive, People usually refer to Don Bradman - so not bad at all really.
|
|
|
|
|
Myles King
{K:791} 4/7/2004
|
Is "text book stuff" good? Thanks for the comment ;) myles
|
|
|
|
|
ade mcfade
{K:12388} 4/7/2004
|
text book stuff, well executed, you got the exposure on the back door just right, yet didn't loose the detail on the wall at the front.
I'm off to find sone doors now :-)
|
|
0 
