HS10 vividly.....

[Keith Tate]

I like the soft lighting and excellent detail, well done !!

[eddie haskell]

Originally Posted by Ed Bray

Nice set of images but I think 1,3 & 5 are all slightly underexposed and would have been improved with the correct exposures.

As a few have already shared Ed, its a personal taste thing. One other thing to consider, you have a lot of subtle shade and varying colors, you try to bring the muted (or as you refer, underexposed) elements up then your top end will be overexposed, depth and texture blown. I'd love to see you give us an example at how you would personally present such a frame if possible, thanks.

[eddie haskell]

A couple more attempts....

Soft brush.....



And solitude....

[vIZnquest]

Pun intended on the solitude shot. Are you referring to the little bit that is showing in the bottom left corner?
Besides that all are done quite well and none look like they are under, over exposed to me. It boils down to personal preference and also if we were all looking at it with the same calibrated monitor (or not). What did you use for PP by the way? The softbrush effect on the first one in the last series looks nice.

[Cresho]

Yes! Personal taste is important. Agreed. All of these are good and interesting subject to discussion at times. through my monitor, solitude looks dead on with light and shadow with contrast and birghtness. along with softbrush. You can literally frame these....very nice.

[eddie haskell]

Originally Posted by vIZnquest

Pun intended on the solitude shot. Are you referring to the little bit that is showing in the bottom left corner?
Besides that all are done quite well and none look like they are under, over exposed to me. It boils down to personal preference and also if we were all looking at it with the same calibrated monitor (or not). What did you use for PP by the way? The softbrush effect on the first one in the last series looks nice.

I get so lazy with my BG.....I know if I was shooting for $$$$, I'd have no excuse, but this is just fun and in no way represents a professional product, but...I am forming a bad habit, arg!

Your point about monitor calibration is spot on, and I for one, often forget that. Every screen has its own varying tweaks too. I don't know if you've ever been to one of the stores where they have a wall of TV screens. They are all on the same feed, yet, look at the difference in picture quality....

Topaz plug-in.

[Cresho]

I just checked out these pics again on my brothers monitor on a second pc. solitude looks very dark. I need to callibrate his monitor now. I just updated the operating system and man the first batch you posted are dead on through this monitor.

Ye! monitor calibration is always important.

[Cresho]

amazing! When I upgraded my monitor, I forgot to calibrate the brightness on it. I just did. Now your flowers look much better.

Funny thing here is with the hp2709, I needed to calibrate through nvidia drivers. Before, just using the monitor's brightness and contrast on previous models worked fine but this one maintained the brightness high so i needed to tweak nvidia. JFYI guys!

Your flowers in the first shots look perfect so i take back what I said on the previous post.

[Ed Bray]

Originally Posted by eddie haskell

As a few have already shared Ed, its a personal taste thing. One other thing to consider, you have a lot of subtle shade and varying colors, you try to bring the muted (or as you refer, underexposed) elements up then your top end will be overexposed, depth and texture blown. I'd love to see you give us an example at how you would personally present such a frame if possible, thanks.

You obviously don't like my opinion which is your choice although I would then ask why the colours are so different between images 1,3 & 5 and those in 2 & 4 when they are from the same set of flowers. If you look at the relevant histograms I think you will find that you are a long way from blowing any texture in those images and that they are underexposed thus losing detail in the shadows and having muddy blacks.

The trouble with trying to bring back an underexposed image as you ask is the loss of detail in the shadows, and whilst you can attempt to get a more suitable image you can never get back fully something that has been lost.

Still I have had a quick go:

The first image is your edit put directly into camera raw, this shows the histogram as recorded by the exposure of your image, No editing of the image has been undertaken at all.



The second image is my quick edit, which has boosted the exposure by 1.5 stops and increased the blacks by 10 to comensate a little for those lost in the original exposure.



I have no doubt from your previous comments that you will still prefer you original edit as is your choice, but it does not get away from the fact that the image is underexposed.

[eddie haskell]

Well Ed....you're assumption is wrong about me. Can I convince you of that, I dunno. I come to the site to learn and dialogue with others. I guess if I wanted to be right (which, of course I do) all the time, I'd be a recluse and validate myself, but that is a very lonely place to be, eh?

On to the "topic de jour". I appreciate what you did, and furthermore, I can definitely see what you mean too. Lighting I feel is one of the biggest elements to consider, in composing. Depending on what lighting you use, it can be used to also set a mood in the picture. With mine, I get a more subdued feeling about the flowers, with your interpretation, AND, it does reflect the original title to my post better (vividly) they seem to jump out at you (with the color).
I honestly appreciate your time and exchange Ed, thanks!