Desperately need critique on photos and andjustments

[Mike@Meonshore 54]

Although most of the posts here have been dealing with monitor calibration and image recovery (including mine), Jill's main problem is that she underexposed the images in question. 

 

That would be correct if the images on the left are SOOC, but if Jill has darkened them/reduced exposure as a result of her editing on the TV screen then it might be that the originals SOOC might be closer to "correct" exposure.

[Terry 8]

If you are using ACR for processing in the histogram box top right, make sure you have the highlight / shadow clipping warning on (two tiny triangles in top corners) this should help you with blown out highlights.

 

Terry. 

[Guest]

 

Yes, left images are too dark, and washed out right images are more seriously off.

 

I strongly second suggestion made by Images by Charly's - calibrate your monitor, since its brightness, contrast, saturation are probably way off if the right images look good to you.

 

 

I calibrated my monitor using Windows built in calibration and now I can see how more blown out the images are than they looked to me before. I will post a couple of new ones and let me know the difference.

 

Jill

 

As others have said you need a calibration device and you also need to be setting your monitor at a standard luminance, usually 120 cdm2. You need a set luminance to work your processing against.

 

Not a fan of the Spyders, the early pucks were poor hardware and personally use an Eye-One display (or whatever they call them nowadays).

[Imagery by Charly 36]

 

Although most of the posts here have been dealing with monitor calibration and image recovery (including mine), Jill's main problem is that she underexposed the images in question. 

 

That would be correct if the images on the left are SOOC, but if Jill has darkened them/reduced exposure as a result of her editing on the TV screen then it might be that the originals SOOC might be closer to "correct" exposure.

 

 

Indeed if working on a TV that is set to highest brightness out of box, then her images would look extremely dark to those of us with calibrated monitors. Though w/o seeing her RAW's SOOC there's no way to determine if underexposure is the first issue before editing. And let us not forget we all shot improperly when we first started out (hell I still have my moments lol) and the learning curve to edit our images is exasperating at best. After 2 yrs., I'm still learning every day to do it better and faster.

 

 

Not a fan of the Spyders, the early pucks were poor hardware 

 

Neither was I, the first 6 mo. I had my Spyder Elite 4.... Thought I wasted $$$ on it, but after a firmware update and calibrating differently then instructed, now it does a great job w/o any headaches.

[Ed Rooney 1,733]

 

Although most of the posts here have been dealing with monitor calibration and image recovery (including mine), Jill's main problem is that she underexposed the images in question. 

 

That would be correct if the images on the left are SOOC, but if Jill has darkened them/reduced exposure as a result of her editing on the TV screen then it might be that the originals SOOC might be closer to "correct" exposure.

 

 

I looked at some of these same images and commented when Jill first joined us at Alamy, and they are underexposed. Right, Jill?  

[MDM 891]

 

 

Although most of the posts here have been dealing with monitor calibration and image recovery (including mine), Jill's main problem is that she underexposed the images in question. 

 

That would be correct if the images on the left are SOOC, but if Jill has darkened them/reduced exposure as a result of her editing on the TV screen then it might be that the originals SOOC might be closer to "correct" exposure.

 

 

I looked at some of these same images and commented when Jill first joined us at Alamy, and they are underexposed. Right, Jill?  

 

 

The only reliable way to distinguish between underexposure and subsequent manipulation would be to look at the raw histograms or similar but the raw images have been lost - unless Jill knows what she did or saved the history, it will forever remain a mystery.

[Jill Morgan 859]

 

 

Although most of the posts here have been dealing with monitor calibration and image recovery (including mine), Jill's main problem is that she underexposed the images in question. 

 

That would be correct if the images on the left are SOOC, but if Jill has darkened them/reduced exposure as a result of her editing on the TV screen then it might be that the originals SOOC might be closer to "correct" exposure.

 

 

I looked at some of these same images and commented when Jill first joined us at Alamy, and they are underexposed. Right, Jill?  

 

 

Guilty as charged Ed. Just learning the camera at the time so some shots just didn't cut it as much as I would have liked.  But thought I  could improve them in PP.  Have a good handle on the camera now, so most of the future stuff should be properly exposed and not needing as much PP. Gonna move on and make sure I don't need to worry about the dark shots as much, although it sure would be easier if Mother Nature would just send some sunshine my way. So tired of dark cloudy days.

 

Forecast for the next 2 weeks here is one sunny day. The rest are cloudy, snow and rain. Ugh!

 

Jill

[NYCat 1,377]

Maybe it's because I mostly photograph animals but I find the soft light of an overcast day works very well for me. If you aren't including the sky there may be things you can still work with. If it's a dramatic stormy sky that can also be good.

 

Paulette