What do you think about this photo?Do you have questions or curiosities about this image? Do you want to ask something to the author, give him suggestions for improvement, or congratulate for a photo that you really like?
You can do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 253000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
| sent on April 11, 2012 (11:33) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
I adjusted levels and color, I duplicated the layer, I saturated everything and I applied a mask to saturate only hide all the boats.
What do you think? Ho sistemato livelli e colore, ho duplicato il livello, ho saturato tutto e ho applicato una maschera nascondi tutto per saturare solo le barche.
Che ne dite? |
| sent on April 13, 2012 (13:41) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Pleasant glimpse of the beautiful Lake Como. I guess that's a classic example of PP that is used for reporting to the scene as you had seen with your own eyes :-) Good luck :-) Scorcio gradevole del bellissimo lago di Como. Direi che è il classico esempio di PP che serve per riportare la scena a come l'avevi percepita con i tuoi occhi  Buon lavoro |
| sent on April 13, 2012 (14:26) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Thank you Winnie!
When I took this picture the sky was dark but the three colorful boats seemed to shine in the midst of them, when I saw the photo on the computer I thought, "does not do it justice"
However, I have not exaggerated the saturation, they were really very colorful! :-)
Two things I do not like too much heaven too are anonymous and the mountain on the left "gray".
Pretending to be able to redo the photo thing I could try to improve?
What I think of:
a) make a second picture with polarized filter and combine the two
b) the function or use of the machine for 3 photos with different exposures using a tripod and self-timer (that day I had not) and then make matches of two
Suggestions? Grazie mille Winnie!
Quando ho scattato la foto il cielo era cupo ma le tre barche coloratissime mi sembravano brillare li in mezzo, quando ho visto la foto a computer ho pensato "non gli rende giustizia"
Comunque non ho esagerato con la saturazione, erano davvero molto colorate!
Due cose che non mi piacciono troppo sono il cielo troppo anonimo e la montagna a sinistra "grigia".
Facendo finta di poter rifare la foto cosa potrei provare per migliorare?
Quello che ho pensato io:
a) fare una seconda foto con filtro polarizzato e unire le due
b) o usare la funzione della macchina delle 3 foto con esposizioni diverse con cavalletto e autoscatto (che quel giorno non avevo) e poi unirne due
Suggerimenti? |
| sent on April 13, 2012 (15:24) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
hello, I would have worked on the sky that seems to me (on my monitor) too overexposed, in ACR I created a photo exposed for the sky and then add in PS ... in my humble opinion.
Janky ciao, io avrei lavorato anche sul cielo che mi sembra (sul mio monitor) troppo sovraesposto; in ACR avrei creato una foto esposta per il cielo e poi unite in PS ...a mio modesto parere.
Janky |
| sent on April 16, 2012 (10:23) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Hello! In my opinion there were no items of light to get a shot "perfect" even with the techniques that you said ;-) a) The polarized diffuse light does not work for the sky ... maybe you could do something for the reflections in water. b) I would avoid the exposure of multiple photos in which the boundaries between the sky and the rest are not clear ... there is a risk too many artifacts IMHO ;-)
PP maybe you can try to insert a point with the PS Nik Viveza plug and lower the brightness of the sky by increasing the contrast a little ... Nikon Capture (to have Nikon) would use the legendary U-point. Ciao! Secondo me non c'erano i presupposti di luce per ottenere uno scatto "perfetto" anche col le tecniche che hai detto  a) Il pola con luce diffusa non funziona per il cielo...forse potevi far qualcosa per i riflessi in acqua. b) Io eviterei le espo multiple su foto in cui i contorni tra il cielo e il resto non sono netti...si rischiano troppi artefatti IMHO
In PP magari potresti provare a inserire un punto con il plugin di PS Nik Viveza e abbassare la luminosita del cielo aumentandone un poco il contrasto... Con Nikon Capture (ad avere Nikon) utilizzerei il mitico U-point. |
| sent on April 16, 2012 (10:58) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
I went to look for him, what a show Viveza!
Ok for multiple exposures, and instead SE (I did not) I had more pictures of heaven and aggiungessi only a few cloud (I've read that many do to replace the skies with photo footage).
At the end of the sky is clear but it is very similar to what it was in reality, only the clouds could be more defined.
PS: I understand what you mean but what does the acronym IMHO?
Thanks Sono andato a cercarlo, che spettacolo Viveza! 
Ok per le esposizioni multiple, e invece SE (non le ho) avessi altre foto di cieli e aggiungessi solo qualche nuvola (ho letto che lo fanno in molti di sostituire i cieli con foto di repertorio).
Alla fine il cielo è chiaro ma è molto simile a com'era in realtà, solo le nuvole potrebbero essere più definite.
PS: Ho capito cosa intendi ma la sigla IMHO per cosa sta?
Grazie |
| sent on April 16, 2012 (12:13) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Not at all! :-) IMHO for "in my humble opinion" ... in my humble opinion ... deformation Internet users:-D I personally say NO to the heavens added in post. At least, in my photos never do these things. I prefer to do as little necessary (levels / contrast and accommodation WB + clone dust sensor, possibly some localized and countered however slight). In this case, maybe the clouds a bit 'sharper would make the best pictures, but I would say that in this case the attention goes to the boats and the mountains. Di nulla! IMHO sta per "in my humble opinion"...secondo il mio modesto parere...deformazione internettiana  Io personalmente dico NO ai cieli aggiunti in post. Almeno, nelle mie foto non faccio mai queste cose. Preferisco fare il poco necessario (livelli/contrasto e sistemazione WB + clone polvere sensore, eventualmente qualche contrastata localizzata e comunque leggera). In questo caso forse le nuvole un po' più definite renderebbero migliore la foto, ma direi che in questo caso l'attenzione va alle barchette e alla montagna. |
| sent on April 16, 2012 (17:54) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Well, I usually settle only color balance and levels. And if you need a little increase 'sharpness. ;-) Beh, anch'io in genere sistemo solo bilanciamento colore e livelli. E se serve aumento un po' la nitidezza. |
|
Publish your advertisement on JuzaPhoto (info) |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
Resize to fit window
