| Author |
Message |
dolly44
Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Posts: 28
Location: http://donnaapsey.zenfolio.com/
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:14 am
| |
Could you guys please take a look at this pic...it was rejected for 'Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect'.
I'm not a 'moaner' and normally would just move on, however the picture has had no alterations white balance was not adjusted the colours are as I saw them...your guidance will be most welcome.
Donna
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
221.96 KB |
| Viewed: |
2797 Time(s) |

|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
242.91 KB |
| Viewed: |
2797 Time(s) |

|
|
|
digigandalf

Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 5413
Location: Twinsburg, OH
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:16 am
| |
Not uneven, just a little dark, esp. on the legs (on my laptop there's loss of detail there).
|
|
tverkhovynets

Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Posts: 749
Location: Kiev, Ukraine
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:20 am
| |
Yes, underexposed. Here is an example, just compare:
Taras
|
|
pjmorley
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 3300
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:48 am
| |
That second horse is much lighter in colour.
|
|
Mike Price

Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 2919
Location: South Wales
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:26 am
| |
I would say it is the loss of detail on the legs. Just open it up a bit.
Mike
|
|
dolly44
Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Posts: 28
Location: http://donnaapsey.zenfolio.com/
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:31 am
| |
Thanks for looking, and the helpful advice.
Donna
|
|
Mike Price

Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 2919
Location: South Wales
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:45 am
| |
I would do something like this. I opened the shadows a bit and applied the dodge tool to the legs set on shadows.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
252.18 KB |
| Viewed: |
2745 Time(s) |

|
|
|
dolly44
Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Posts: 28
Location: http://donnaapsey.zenfolio.com/
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:30 pm
| |
Thank you Mike...I appreciate you going to so much trouble.
Donna :-)
|
|
pharm

Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9406
Location: Never quite sure
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:12 pm
| |
Just out of curiosity, can you post a 100% crop?
|
|
rinder99

Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39226
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:22 pm
| |
| pharm wrote: | | Just out of curiosity, can you post a 100% crop? |
My thought also. the fur looks very artifacty
|
|
dolly44
Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Posts: 28
Location: http://donnaapsey.zenfolio.com/
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:34 am
| |
I thought I did...I zoomed in to 100% and cropped the section to post here.
I will chech this evening when I get home.
Thanks all!
Donna
|
|
wolfienz

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Posts: 31
Location: Gulf Harbour, New Zealand
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:24 am
| |
Hahahaha Lauren, have to pick you up there, horses don't have fur, they have hair.
|
|
dolly44
Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Posts: 28
Location: http://donnaapsey.zenfolio.com/
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:39 am
| |
I redone the 100% crop.
Donna
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
186.21 KB |
| Viewed: |
2485 Time(s) |

|
|
|
Mike Price

Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 2919
Location: South Wales
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:31 am
| |
The crop isn't 100% or if it is the original image is too small to be accepted. The crop should be a minimum of 4 times bigger than the original to even make 4MP minimum.
Mike
|
|
dolly44
Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Posts: 28
Location: http://donnaapsey.zenfolio.com/
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:38 am
| |
I thought I done it correctly.,I used the crop tool at 500x500 px..the only difference is the crop is saved at 300dpi,the full version I saved at 72dpi....or am I missing something?
Donna
|
|
| |
|