- This topic is empty.
Shiny instrument!
-
I know it comes down to personal taste, but as I’ve been checking back through previous posts, your last few including this one are just way over cooked in Photoshop for my liking. There’s a blurriness kind of glow which is just completely unnatural and over stylised which takes away from the shot. I also think it’s just too contrasty with far too much of the shot completely blown and the rest of the detail lost in shadows. Sorry Graham.. not a fan of this one. I think it has the potential of a good shot, especially with the reflection in the instrument, but the processing and exposure have let it down IMO.
No need to apologise Ciaran. I value these types of comments far more than the usual
“ooo thats pretty”
I take your point on the processing side. I was trying something new and I have a few different versions.
I usually post the ones that i’m not happy with simply to get back comments like yours.
I actually just got this printed and it looks totally different on paper.
Thanks for the comments I really appreiciate them.
I wouldn’t mind getting your feedback on this B+W version
thanks
The glow is gone, which for me is the biggest improvement. The new conversion feels a little muggy. For instance it’s hard to make out detail in the mans face. I’ve tried adjusting the contrast a bit to show you what I mean. I’m sure had I the original colour I could do a better job. But my one has a full range of tones (some blocked up shadows) with very little detail lost in the highlights and I think the faces are more obvious now. As for your printing comment, I’d be concerned if my prints came out different to the on screen images.. it suggests you need to calibrate your monitor to your printer.
Thanks Ciaran, I’m going to revisit your B+W conversion thread and have a crack at the original.
I do like the basic shot but i do want to present it a little better.
Oh and I don’t print myself, I get most of shots printed in Gunns.
The pc and monitors I use in the office are pretty crap. I have the MAC at home fairly well calibrated
( I think ). The first processing attempt of this shot was just carried out when I a few free minutes in work.
I have to really spend some time working on some of my shots this weekend to really get the best out of them.Thanks again.
Even if you don’t print yourself, I think it’s worth finding someway of calibrating your screen output to what ever printer you use. Even if this isn’t an automated step. For instance I used to use Photobox and discovered that all the prints were considerably darker and slightly softer than what I saw on screen. So I created a photoshop action which sharpened the shots and did a slight levels adjustment on them, which I ran on any shots being sent for printing. Especially considering you’re paying for prints and having a delay in receiving them, it’s worth knowing you’ll have some consistency between what you deliver to the printers and what you get back.
Forgive my ignorance but should a printer such as Gunns be able to tell me what
kind of calibration i should be using. I could figure it out if I was using my own printer
but i don’t know the process for an outside printer.Yup!
Profiling can be a costly and messy business. Calibrating your monitor is an important step, but you really need to calibrate your monitor to your printer and thats all before you start introducing paper profiles :shock: Gunns should be able to provide information about what printer they’re using etc which may help, but unless you have your monitor in there and they have a full profiling solution which they’ll let you run, I can’t see how that information would be of any real use. Thorsten might be the man to ask? For me, when using an external printer, I was happy enough to know I had to darken my shots a bit and apply some additional sharpening before sending for printing. I’d definitely try and find some solution if your prints look completely different as you said.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
