I've been meaning to reply to Moose's post so I guess now is as good as
any. Perhaps Moose is just being his normal pedantic self but my first
reaction to the mods to the bedroom and patio shots was; "Hey, yes, tell
me how you did that. I want to know." And that was followed by "It's
been overdone and looks unnatural."
The bedroom photo has corrected the hotspot from the flash on the
ceiling and brought up the natural light from the window which shows on
the wall. But it has also brought up the brightness at the viewers end
of the room and the bed with no apparent light source to do so. I think
a better photo would use the bottom half of Jeff's photo and the top
half of Moose's.
I could also accept the bedroom photo as is but I can't say the same for
the patio shot. To me, the patio shot was taken in another solar system
with binary suns. That's the only way to explain the light from the
weaker red giant that is illuminationg the patio while the G class star
sets in the front yard. Very interesting mods and I'd like to know how
to do it but I think he forgot to use the opacity slider on the
adjustment layer. :-)
I have similar feelings but to a much lesser degree on the kitchen shot.
Things are brighter but I can't tell where the light might be coming
from and it looks just a little unnatural. The library on the other
hand is just perfect. Wish I'd a'done it.
Chuck Norcutt
Jeff Keller wrote:
> More info please?
>
> The patio image could be divided into two halves using a straight line
> following the roof line down to the shadow on the fence. The shadow
> side could be warmed while the bright side could have the exposure
> adjusted down. It appeared you used a more involved selection. What
> did you do?
>
> The bedroom appears to have the exposure boosted near the two sides
> and bottom. Do you rember how you did the selection / mask ?
>
> "... without lying." I don't see my job to uncover the truth but to
> present the property in a favorable light. I believe the buyers like
> to have pleasing photos of the house they buy. Most of the time
> written words don't have a major impact on a home sale. In one
> instance Juliana had a writer do a superb job on a house she put up
> for sale. The writing probably boosted the price of the house by well
> over $10,000, perhaps as much as $40,000. The buyer was very informed
> however ... she was a real estate agent herself. She had just gone
> through an ugly divorce and she was very willing to pay for "good
> feelings".
>
> I know my own preference is for images that are cooler than what most
> people like, even most of the list members. Your warming of the patio
> would be an improvment to 99.9% of all viewers. Hearing other peoples
> likes and dislikes is very helpful. I was hoping to go back and
> re-take the shot in early morning light. I didn't get a chance as the
> seller was still trying to fix up his home for his Sunday open house
> and had stuff everywhere. I also agree my image has a hot spot on the
> bedroom ceiling that needs to be fixed. Time flees ...
>
> -jeff
>
> On 11/12/06, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>I wasn't really trying to make the image "better", just different - but
>>let me start over - forget the group pic.
>>
>>What I was trying to do is offer another tool for the digital darkroom
>>for those who might find it useful. With all the talk about multiple
>>lights and techniques to get even lighting, I thought maybe a process I
>>sometimes use could prove useful. I guess I chose the wrong image on
>>which to illustrate it.
>>
>>Jeff posted a link to some shots of a dwelling that got me thinking
>>about it again. So Jeff, hope you don't mind, here goes nothing again.
>>My assumption about these shots is that they are meant to make the
>>property look good without lying. :-)
>>
>>- The bedroom shows quite a bit of hot spotting. A quick run through
>>doesn't make the lighting completely even, which would be pretty dull, I
>>think. To me, it makes the room feel much warmer and more inviting by
>>lightening up the corners and high-lighting the bed, so it becomes the
>>focal point, rather than the bright areas on blank walls
>><http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Keller/bedroom.htm>.
>>
>>- Oddly enough, the patio suffers from a similar problem, the part that
>>should be inviting is dark and cold looking. Here, because of the
>>outdoor setting and wildly different lighting in sun and shade, I broke
>>it into two parts, applying the technique to the shade part
>><http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Keller/patio_b.htm>.
>>
>>Jon's recent post about the color of his website led me to again(?)
>>meander with him and others listees through the countryside to a church
>>where he made an image of an unevenly lit part of the interior.
>>
>>- As with many of my tech examples, the artistically most desirable
>>version might lay somewhere between the original and my alternate
>>version. So if you don't like it so bright and shiny, try to look past
>>that to how much more even the lighting is from left to right and from
>>brighter areas to shadows
>><http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/JonMitchell/45122633.26020.htm>.
>>
>>And I still think this technique applied to the snaps of this library
>>and kitchen transform really awful lighting into something much better
>><http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Lighting/Library2.htm>
>>& <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Lighting/Kitchen.htm>.
>>
>>Moose
>>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|