This forum uses html rather than BBCode. Below is an example. < img src = "
http://www.example.com/folder/image.jpg >< / img >
I added spaces to the above so you can see the html code and not a red x.
Edit: To click on on link you would use:
< a href = "
http://www.example.com/folder/image.jpg" > < /a>
You can use the < img > tag for the thumbnail image between the open and closing < a > tag. This would make the thumbnail clickable.
Silk
Patricia,
I’d suggest Curves adjustment (see settings on the screenshot). This may blow out the background, so add it as a separate adjustment layer and then mask the background area.
Also, I noticed some blue cast. If it wasn’t intended so, use Hue/Saturation to desaturate "Blues" color range.
SimplePhotoshop.com <
http://simplephotoshop.com/>
That leaves her hair way too blue. You need to pull back blue in highlights and midtones.
Another thing you might want to take a look at Patricia, is the Photo Filter adjustment layer.
Personally, i would shoot raw and do the color properly there in the first place. there are all kinds of options to adjust hue/sat/luminosity of any single color if you need to. much more control from the start,instead of trying to salvage later.
As Donald says, by shooting RAW you have far more information to work with, making the rescue of a badly exposed image more feasible. You can, of course, put a Jpeg through ACR if you have CS3. Still not as good as RAW, but at least you have access to all the controls.
Here I got the balance as near as possible in ACR (of course, I don’t know the girl’s complexion, so I had to guess) Removing the blue from the hair left it almost greyscale, so I then opened the image in Photoshop and added a colour fill layer (mode set to colour) to the hair then played about with the opacity and colour to get something resembling blonde.
No perfect, but better than the original. You would only really do a rescue on an image like this if it was impossible to shoot again. The only real way is to get it right in the camera in the first place.
Keep at it Patricia.
Chris.
I bet you could get a much better result on the original without the bad adjustment shown by patricia.too much cyan and blue everywhere. I tried as well,but did not feel like getting that involved in making it perfect,because it would be to complicated to tell how. I might be wrong,but many folks just do not grasp the power of raw data verses jpg. if she shot raw,this would be a totally different result. i am not crazy about the side shot either,and think that a more 3/4 view would be more flattering,but i dont know how the shot came to be,so thats another discussion.
The more i look at that shot,the more it looks like a blue gradient was added,but maybe i am wrong.
Chris thanks for your suggestions and the time to redo the pic and explaining how that you did it.I will play around with it.It isnt that important. I had taken several shots using manual and in the process of turning the camera on to shot this one i put it on portrait by mistake and this is what i got. The girl liked the shot so i told her that i would try to fix it.I had taken 4 shot in the portrait mode and she liked all 4.I have a real problem shooting dark skin.
Thanks again.
By "Portrait Mode" do you mean a fancy setting on the camera to automatically set the controls for what IT deems correct for a portrait?
My advice is to forget AUTO of any kind. Use the camera on MANUAL and learn how to set the exposure correctly for the scene in front of you. No camera can begin to guess at the correct settings. Point an auto camera at someone in a white outfit in a snowy landscape – result: grey snow and an under-exposed face. Point the same camera at a man in a dark suit in front of a shadowy urban scene – result: Grey suit and an OVER exposed face.
Shoot the two pictures after manually measuring the light and you’ll get perfect exposure. To do this, point the camera’s meter at a grey card, or in spot-meter mode at skin tones, then leave those setting in place even if the camera tries to tell you otherwise.
Camera manufacturers fit all the "auto" bells and whistles to make their cameras "sexy". They want you to buy them – and then upgrade when a new model comes out next year!
Not only is "auto everything" bad for photography, it’s also harder to learn and easier to make mistakes (as you’ve found out here and in many of the other posts you’ve made in the Photography forum).
I wouldn’t mind betting a book full of dozens of different "modes" and combinations of settings came with your camera. A camera – any camera – only has three settings. Yes THREE! – Shutter Speed, Aperture and Focus. Nothing else. Zilch!
Learn how to use those three in combination and you will rarely if ever have to "rescue" an image in Photoshop.
Shoot RAW – and you’re really cooking on gas!
Have fun.
Chris.
While totally agreeing with the principle of not using "Auto" settings, the "Stitch Assist" setting lets you judge good overlaps for hand-held panoramic shots.
Donald,How shooting raw would give me more control?
Patricia,i can not suggest strongly enough to shoot raw if you really want to have every bit of data available for post processing. It has been said that jpg equals cooked and raw is uncooked. your camera is screwing with the data when it creates a jpg,and you can not achieve the ultimate control in post processing anywhere near what a raw file can. the ability to change color temp after the fact is just one reason.sure you can play with a jpg in raw,but shots like you showed can be adjusted so much more using raw. I know you are still learning a lot about the art of photography and shooting raw just might save your butt someday,were a jpg will leave you high and dry. Personally speaking,if i spend 2 grand for a camera,i want all that it can deliver everytime,and raw is the way to do it.
I also think getting a gray card and trying what chris suggested will help you.if you learn to use manual,you can look at your lcd and know immediately what adjustment to make to reach a certain result.
Donald thanks for the info.I will check out the raw and practice.I have been shooting in manual mode but screwed up with the camera settings taking this shot and put the camera in the portrait mode with everything pre set.I have a lot to learn and dont get to shoot evryday or every week not a lot of experience.Does the raw transfer to from camera to computer the same as jpg?Is raw a larger file?I will study it. Thanks
Patricia, raw transfers the same,but it does take up more space on your memory card,due to capturing more data.on my d200 i get 480 raw shots on an 8gig card,and 900 jpg fine on the same card. I am not going to try and teach you everything, but cameras will pick a combo of aperture and shutter speed to give an average reading.so if you point your camera at a black card,it will try and make it gray,and the same if you point at a white card.if you had 3 cards,white,black and 18 percent gray,and you metered only off the gray,your cards would look black,white and gray. in the example of the girl,metering off a midtone,like her face,would have yielded a good starting point.
You need to set up a tripod,go on manual and meter off the main subject.next look at your lcd to determine how well the meter did.next you must learn how to adjust your aperture or shutter speed to either let more or less light in to manipulate what the camera thinks is right,verses what you see is right or want to achieve.
Donald Thanks for the info.
