Re: This is how: (Dark JPG follow-up...)
- From: "Focus" <not@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:24:41 -0000
"Nooby" <Nooby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:49j9o459fscf80i1vm2hl47artv01ap64d@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:44:43 -0000, "Focus" <not@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for your opinion about the sizes and print size. A 4x5 would
give me 330 DPI, and that is plenty, no? And a 5x7 would be 260 DPI.
Is there anything wrong with 260 DPI on a 5x7 print?
I don't really know how the photographer prepared the JPGs, I am just
wondering if there is a reasonably simple way to fix the underexposed
ones. This is probably not the first time someone has a dark JPG and
wants to fix it up, right? It has probalby been done before. We are
not breaking fresh technical ground here.
If it takes Photoshop to do the corrections, pls post some
suggestions. Photoshop can do everything, that's what I have heard.
But I dont' want to do everything with Photoshop, all I want to do is
correct a dark JPG. And even a nooby should be able to do that if
given the correct instructions.
Photoshop is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. In the hands of a
trained/skilled professional there is a lot possible, as you can see in
the
links I send you of the old and retouched pictures:
http://best-of-photos.com/Nooby2/
It sounds like you want to drive a BMW that needs a tune up. You found
some
tools and now you want to do it yourself. Maybe you need to be a mechanic
for that?
One thought has crossed my mind: maybe the photographer gave you the dark
pictures on purpose. For you to choose which you wanted in print and then
order from him.
Because there's no watermark, you decided you could do it yourself and
stiff
him.
Not so unbelievable since you didn't answer my mail, but you are posting
here begging for tips.
Thanks -- the results look interesting -- the proof is in the
printing.
Why all the nasty comments? If you don't trust me, why go to the
trouble of fixing the images? And, I did respond to your email.
Ah, I was just ventilating some thoughts. I just thought it was strange the
photographer gave you these bad jpg's, but did manage to print normal
pictures. So maybe he didn't want you to print them, otherwise you could ask
for the same pictures in raw format, right?
It is a foolish pro who would give a customer bad JPGs, with or
without watermarks. Ours didn't do that, he gave us excellent 4x5s in
an album, and then sold us albums and loose prints. After payment, he
gave us the JPGs that we now have.
Maybe he didn't tell you so, but was silently hoping that you would want to
have them in print?
But the Internet is a nasty place... you just have to judge for
yourself.
Anyway, I didn't ask for fixed up JPGs, I asked how to do it.
But I have a clue now! From surfing the web. It's by screen-blending
layers. As I said, the proof is in the printing. So I will get them
printed.
I wish you good luck, but that's not at all the way I went about it.
Thanks for your efforts and demo.
You're welcome.
--
Focus
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: This is how: (Dark JPG follow-up...)
- From: Nooby
- Re: This is how: (Dark JPG follow-up...)
- From: Nooby
- Re: This is how: (Dark JPG follow-up...)
- References:
- Re: This is how: (Dark JPG follow-up...)
- From: Nooby
- Re: This is how: (Dark JPG follow-up...)
- Prev by Date: Re: Nikon D90 and 18-200mm lens
- Next by Date: Re: G10 memory battery internal?
- Previous by thread: Re: This is how: (Dark JPG follow-up...)
- Next by thread: Re: This is how: (Dark JPG follow-up...)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
