Can someone look at this and tell me if it's too dark on your screen.

[Alex]

My computer latest report is that I'll have to wipe out the hard drive and reload windows from scratch. I guess I'll be without the computer for a few days my main PC that is. I don't use the laptop for editing.

 

 

Tim I can see the 20 colors out of the 21 the withe one fades away but I can clearly see the other ones.

 

Now I have to spend some quality time re reading this tread to see what I gather as far as fixng this image.

 

Thanks

[roberto_patrizi]

Print the image, blacks looks different on paper in my opinion. The image should be too dark, even printed.

 

In my opinion this image is a Low-k, unusual for the highlights in the background. This type of picture are typically overexposed and then underdeveloped! You should find something more on internet. It also requires a fill-in flash to reduce the exposure latitude of the scene.

[patricklavoie]

Well, as Frans mention, your image could look darker or lighter depending of your monitor calibration..and with what? normal calibration is 2.2 gamma, 6500k and 120cd, i personnaly prefer 110 as it give me a slightly darker monitor closer to what a print will look like.

 

Second thing is, even corrected your image show a lack of information du to the poor exposition..even with the multiple try on this post, the image still look too dark or when people try to get it *right* you can see artifact and blurrines in the gorilla chess.

 

Whatever the methode use to try to get something out, this image wont print well. The best version i have seen come from Jon and Ed..the other look like bad photoshop.

 

Is this image worth to be pritn even if the result is just OK? maybe for you if you fall in love with it. I would have trun it BW so i can get all the detail possible and add some noise to cover my problem personnaly : )

[david.elliott]

Well, here is my attempt to adjust it. All edits performed in LR2. I dont have time at the moment to type them out - off to

class now. If you'd like the edits listed, let me know.<div></div>

[david.elliott]

I thought the last one might have looked a bit washed out. Here it is with the blacks and contrast adjusted slightly.<div></div>

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

<br>

How did your gorilla look in real life? On my screen, a Mac Book Pro, it looks a bit dark grey. May be it's how

it is?

<br><br>

This one here was real black.

<br><br>

<img src="http://nomadphotography.com.au/Poub/gorilla1047.jpg">

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

Alex,

 

I'll be happy to host your RAW file and put a link here for people to have a look at.

 

Send me the RAW file, and NOT the TIFF one, to thierry (at) nomadphotography (dot) com (dot) au

 

I have a 100 Gig mail box so it should be ok to load your RAW file.

[jongaus]

Keep in mind that Macs and PCs are calibrated differently regarding gamma. Macs are usually calibrated to 1.8, while PCs normally use 2.2. This means that a photo edited on a Mac will look darker on a PC. I tried a web search on the topic and found this article which could be of interest: http://www.cgsd.com/papers/gamma.web.html

[patricklavoie]

please, drop this old school 1.8 mac vs 2.2 pc thing...all monitor should be calibrated at 2.2.

 

if you own a Mac, and still use 1.8 for your calibration, its time you read a good book on the subject.

 

The link you provide is from a 1998 article...i recognise the young girl from photoshop 3 (i think)..and i have look at the bottom of the page for the article date : )

[frans_waterlander]

Alex,

 

As I wrote before your monitor brightness should match the brightness of your digital darkroom lighting. There is no magical number, although for many viewing conditions a range of say 90 to 120 nits (or cd/m^2) may be a good starting point.

 

"Here we go again... Chances are your monitor is set way to bright, causing you to edit your images too dark. Your monitor brightness should match the brightness of your digital darkroom lighting. Compare a totally white image on your monitor (all R, G, B values at 255) with a blank piece of printing paper illuminated by your digital darkroom lighting. Adjust your monitor and/or lighting if there is a mismatch. Don't use dimmers for your lights as they cause a dramatic change in color temperature."

[lorriman]

Curves only, and just once. Trying not to drift too far from the original. May as well look as though he is actually in

shade, after all.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7850153">my edit</a>

[charliecrusan]

It seems like it's a combination of 1. Your profile settings must be a little too light, and 2. The photo is a little too dark in the shadows. I would just brighten up the shadows a just a touch. However, it appears that you aren't the only one with a problem. It's pretty crazy how much images people sent you as examples varied!

[aappelphotography]

Here is my try. Simply 2 masks, lighting up the animal, keeping the background as it is. Drop me a note if you want the PSD file. <br/>I worked on the jpg, sorry for artefacts, guess with the RAW you could get a lot more detail out of it.<div></div>

[pankaj purohit]

Wonderfull picture Omega, I like his expressions... Amazing.

[Alex]

Frans Watterlander: That was a very crafty photoshop change. it looks like a totally different gorilla. I'll send you the raw file as soon as I can fix my PC thanks for the offer of hosting the file. Also how do you deternine the brightness of your digital darkroon? I find my self correcting pictures at night and sometimes during the day so the lighting does change. I calibrate my monitor with the eye 1 and there is an attachment to read the ambient light. I don't know how useful that is though.

 

Patrick Lavoie: I do have the gamma set at 2.2 I'm not sure about the brightness but What is the CD adjustment your are talking about.

 

Jon Gausdal: Nice fix on the image I was hoping for a bit darker image but i guess I will have to go back and hope for better lighting or take the flash with me. I do notice a bit od a gree/yallow cast on this not calibrated monitor.

 

Pete Millis: Good corrections too the one that was not sharpen looks better here.

 

Ed Ci: Your correction is the one that looks the best here. The chest seems a bit dark though but that is the feeling I wa after.

 

greg Lorriman: Your correction as Ed Ci's are the ones that appeal the most to me.

 

Forgive me for not mentioning everyone who took the time to respond. I trully appreciate each and every comment.

 

Regards

[Alex]

Andre Appel: very nice. That's what I had in mind. I like the background to stay the way it is and just lighten up the upper portion of the animal enough to see detail.

Thanks for working on it.

 

What 2 mask did you use? or how did you used them?

[petemillis]

Charlie "It seems like it's a combination of 1. Your profile settings must be a little too light, and 2. The photo is a little too dark in the shadows. I would just brighten up the shadows a just a touch. However, it appears that you aren't the only one with a problem. It's pretty crazy how much images people sent you as examples varied!" -

 

Things will vary not just because of monitor calibration, but most likely because of difference in personal preference. I don't think there's a problem.

 

Alex, thanks. I agree, the one without the USM is better - I just did that after Jon mentioned it...but don't like it.

 

Patrick "bad photoshop"..... clearly some of us are either still learning or had different ideas about how the original scene looked. we can't all be experts like you. Sorry.

[twmeyer]

66 hits on fixing an under exposed gorilla. sigh... t

[patricklavoie]

dont be sorry Pete, its OK to learn.

 

but people could not be in denial about the fact that some example heres are worst than the original; a blue gorilla when black as the original is not good. People stay amateur when they denied the fact that what they have done is not good, a blue gorilla cant be a matter of taste or opinion if you want to keep thing real. You can get a lemon orange if you like, but it will not look real, therefore for me its a bad photoshop if the task was to get him right.

 

Opening shadow of a dark exposed shot will only get noise to show or lack of detail and artifact to be visible, again, for me thats a bad photoshop.

 

I call thing as they are, sorry if that offend you. As i said, dont be sorry to learn, but be ready to get bad review along the way ..it could only help you get better..and one day you will be call expert by others, and appreciate it..i have walk that road too.

[petemillis]

Ha, Patrick - my one's b;ack in a bluey sort of way as I didn't do a white balance adjustment. How could I correct white balance without having seen the gorilla myself, or without a grey or white card in the picture? Some gorillas are dark brown, some are black. Black things - fur and that - often takes on a blue appearance. I could have assumed he was some other colour and then altered WB accordingly, but I didn't.

[frans_waterlander]

"Frans Watterlander: That was a very crafty photoshop change"

 

No, you're mistaking me for someone else. I'm the one who keeps bringing up the monitor brightness issue and you may be wasting your time with all the other suggestions and picking up more bad habits in the process.

[patricklavoie]

"...How could I correct white balance without having seen the gorilla myself.."

 

by assuming that it as a better chance to be black than blue : )

 

"...Black things - fur and that - often takes on a blue appearance..."

 

Agree, but they take it to a certain degree only..when a original is black, if yours is suddently blue, you got something wrong. No need for a gray card or a white card there...simply assume that the gorilla must be black, and make sure he is. A *touch* of blue could be had to get the feeling of a real fur..but a touch only.

 

_________

 

In the end, make sure youre monitor is well calibrated to a standard, shoot well and learn how to, experimented and ask people who dont know you to give you some feedback of your work, people that dont know you but from who you respect theres oppinion. acollegue, a friend, a family member are the worst to give constructive feedback as they wont like to offend you : )

[david_amberson1]

This is why we need a DSLR in 35mm format that has 13+ stops of DR as the new P65 MF. Then this wouldnt even be a topic. This is were film still wins.

[peter_kervarec]

There is a lot written here that didnt need to be. People often say to me , you can Photoshop it later. Well No !

I try and get it right now because I dont want to waste hours "photoshopping" rubbish. The gorilla has very

little info in the shadows and a lot of noise. There has to be a 3-5 stop variation between its rump and unhappy

head.Its front section is way too dark on my screen.

[roger_smith4]

If I were shooting a stationary gorilla in these lighting condidtions I'd use fill flash or high speed HDR (see Outback photo for details) so that I'd have a good range of tones to work with.

 

For the folks above who "fixed" the image by blowing out the highlights, moving the gorrila from the shadows to the midtones, and changing the color of the grass/plants until they looked unnatural please look again at your edits. You can't fix one problem if it causes three other problems. Andre did a nice job.

 

Here's a quick and dirty edit in Photoshop using masks and layers. If the TIFF upload doesn't work I'll post to my website and you can download.