Cades Cove...

This was taken at Cades Cove in the smokies. My scanner scans everything extremly dark and I generally lose details in the darker sections. This picture I lost the fence running along the front. The first I just did auto-levels, the second I played around a bit more and tried to fix the lighting so the fence is back in the picture. It's hard to try and adjust pictures with my monitor. Is the second too harsh?

All input is welcome :)

I love Cades Cove. I always go there whenever I'm in the smokies. I like the picture. I'm sure it looks better on film then after scanning...my scanner does the same thing, but luckily for me I shoot mostly digital. I prefer the first one better. With the second one you loose the effect of the light and the detail of the mountain in the distance. The first one is a keeper :cool:

CaraRose, instead of trying to correct the whole image, try to focus only on the 'problem areas' using slections or masks. In this case I've applied a levels and saturation correction to the dark foreground and used the a highlight correction on the skies to bring out the interesting clouds. I lalso tried to bring out more color in the mountains.
Heavy jpeg artifacts and lack of sharpness doesn't allow me to achieve better results, but hopefully you get an idea. It's a good shot but it only needs a proper correction in my opinion. :)

Cararose, I really like your first picture, What JOED did with it is also very nice. It has painting feel to it, which I get with my scanned film pictures. I kind of like it most of the time. I am sure everyone would disagree with me, but I even like the first one as it is better. I know it is against exposure rules, and you are loosing detail in the fence, but no one convinced me yet that every picture must be well exposed.
The composition itself is really nice, it is a picture that I would keep for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kamboura

It has painting feel to it.

---

Well kamboura, that wasn't done on purpose, that is if you mean the painting look in the sky. This is the result of the jpeg artifacts I was talking about earlier. Personally I don't prefer the painting look of the clouds, I like it more natural but sadly there is no convincing way to get rid of jpeg artifacts and the image I had to work with is too small and lacks some quality to get optimum results. It's also not an example how it should look like, it's just an example of how to attack only one specific area. ;)

CaraRose,
I like the image and you framed it nicely. i like the way you put the fence right up in close and leading out into the scene. I like the first image best as it has dramatic contrast and a nice mood, even as dark as it is. JoeD has done a good job with whatn there was to work with and good suggestions on improvement in ps.
If you wish to keep shooting film, as do I, you might want to consider investing in a film scanner. . .such as the Minolta Dimage dual sca lv. I only have my negatives developed ( cost 2.75 for a 36 exp ) and then scan the negatives . The scan come out great, with high resolution, and i save alot of money by not having prints made. I just print out on my printer the ones I like.

Gahspidy,
I am also shooting film, and what I am using now, only as a suggestion to anyone else not interested in scanning, I develop the pictures ,and I get a print set, and a CD made all for $7.00 canadian, for the 1 hour service. The pictures are usual 3 MP, so they are good for 5X6 if needed. You can see what these look like in the Quebec City post, they are not bad results at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kamboura

Gahspidy,
IThe pictures are usual 3 MP, so they are good for 5X6 if needed. You can see what these look like in the Quebec City post, they are not bad results at all.

---

You mean 3MB. My scans are 30 mb scanning in 24 bit color or 59mb scanning in 48 bit color ( I don't usually scan in 48 bit as my editing software only works with 24 bit and lower ) so my resolution is high enough to allow for good detail and large prints.
But what you mention is a good alternative and another route for those shooting in film to consider. Thanks for offering that.

could be an interesting shot if it wasn't for the bad quality... those colors are really crappy