I took these in natural light using a Canon power shot SD800 IS. They were very dark, I adjusted the brightness level in Photoshop to reveal the image.
Printable View
I took these in natural light using a Canon power shot SD800 IS. They were very dark, I adjusted the brightness level in Photoshop to reveal the image.
Hi Mike,
To get a night time shot without having to photoshop it... Try putting the camera on a tri-pod and using a slow exposure. If the camera doesn't do it automatically, then slip it into manual mode.
Nice job of photoshopping the shots by the way.:)
Thanks for the suggestion John. My Camera is a small point and click shooter about the size of a pack of cigarettes, there is no room on my Harley for luggage. I carry my Camera and Phone in the same pocket. ;)Quote:
Try putting the camera on a tri-pod and using a slow exposure.
The shots came out looking very good, Mike. They look as good as any film night shots I have seen.
Thanks Bill.
Does it have a manual Mode? Set it up on something stable like the seat of your bike, and set a 10 second timer... The camera should stablize after your trip the timer and then you can have a 1 second exposure... It would make your work in photoshop easier. You wouldn't have to dig in the dirt as much for the shot.:)
Mike, as in the two example shots --- telling everyone and everything to freeze for a second wouldn't have been that big of a deal, no? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by raynerj1
Risto
Hence the phrase..... "Calling the shots"!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Bailey
I "had" to:D
Hmmm... Telling a bunch o partying bikers to "freeze" would seem to be asking for trouble.
That is almost as bad as walking into a redneck bar and asking who's pickup did I just back into...:)
Just before my son was born, I won a "HUGE" stuffed duck while up at Old Orchard Beach in Maine (USA)
It was my first year up there sans-my ride.... There was a large group of "Star Riders" and I walked up to the biggest, baddest lookin one and said... "Can I put my duck on yer ride, for a pic"??
........ He burst out laughin (lookin over at my "then" pregnant wife) and said "Absolutely"!!
( I don't think I have to tell John.... just how completely relieved I was);)
Cute... but I think telling a group of bikers to "freeze" would put em more on a defensive posture than asking one of em to let you pose your duckie on his bike.:)
I am one of those bikers you guys are talking about. I don't have to use a tripod, or say freeze, If I want someone to pose I just say "Smile". I have been asked plenty of times let someone sit on my bike for a picture, its usually some girl who wants to take her cloths off so her boyfriend can get a picture of her boobs on my Harley. ;)
Attached is what the image looks like straight out of the camera, then after postworking with photoshop. I don't need to spend a lot of time in PS to get the details that are hidden in the darkness to show up in the image. It amazes me that if I have a very dark area on an image, when I brighten it up in an image editor the details are in there, works with scanned images as well.
actually, I like the darker pic more.... Is there a way to keep the dark (which shows up the neon signs better....) and only lighten the areas with the bikes, etc.??
Yes, by selectively brightening the area of interest. What I do is I brighten a copy layer 100%, then adjust the opacity until the overall brightness level is what I want. Then I mask out those areas of the brightness layer to allow the dark image to show through to some degree.Quote:
Is there a way to keep the dark (which shows up the neon signs better....) and only lighten the areas with the bikes, etc.??
It took 5 minutes to adjust this image bringing the neon lights down to the original brightness.
Thanks. Wow, now that's a really unique lookin pic! I like that alot! So... if one were to really take the time, you could do that to "just" all the lights, individually?? That would be rally wild lookin
I found I like xara better for this type of selective adjustment... create a bitmap copy of the original and pway with both in xpe..... then feather the edges between the two so you don't loose the glow.:)
What version of Photoshop do you have?Quote:
I found I like xara better for this type of selective adjustment...
In English that means what? Mini-tutorial please? :confused: Please use the imagery in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by raynerj1
Hah! :D The agreement I had with my wife was this - I agree to have a third one - I get a Harley. The third one has been around for 2 1/2 years now, and he is a prize... But my wife says she can't risk me going head-on, or wipe-under a lumber truck by accident - so, no Harley for Risto! :( I have told her many times that I would not drive in to a lumber truck on purpose (even when she is being a nagging bi******* ***** ******** = bilingual french canadian... ;) Didn't help... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Bailey
Mike, seeing the upside of things... I would make a great biker, as I'm very accomodating to women who wants to take their clothes off for me.
However, I couldn't grow facial hair even if stuck in a 70s Vietnamese prison camp for a few years... As you are on the "in" on the biker side of things - is that a real handicap, or could I work through it by shaving a Shih Tzu + super glue or something like that?
Just curious. :) ;)
Risto
My recommendation to those who wish to create that "biker" look, yet can't grow facial hair is..... get a tattoo on your neck. Something completely vial and obcene and which is of great offense to others, and which you will absolutely regret as a grand-parent.... (hahaha)
Funny note on offensive tats.... One of mine (which is on my right forearm) is a symbol which represents my sign (gemini) It is actually two of such symbols mixed together, the main symbol I got from a book on alchemy which represents "mercury" (as a metal compound) I use it for mercury which rules gemini (I know it's the planet, not the metal) but it looked better.... The second id the more common II symbol, which together looks like this......
I get more comments (positive and negative) on this one tattoo... than all my others Younger people love it and older people think Im gonna rape their chiuauah
Per Risto's Request... The The signs in the 1st picture are almost overexposed, whereas the rest of the shot is very under exposed. So we need to brighten most of the shot and tone tone the signs...
1. Import bitmap... size to 600 pix across. (Just for making posting here in the forum easier)
2. Create a bitmap copy of the shot. (You can not do another copy of the same bitmap. You need a 2nd copy of the same bitmap. xpe works on the bitmap in the bitmap gallery... since we intend to lighten one and darken the other we need 2 distinct bitmaps.
3. Place the second bitmap on another layer directly over the first bitmap.
4. create a general shape of the bright areas... slice and dice it from the top bitmap. The is now technically a shape... so you need to use utilites=>bitmap editor to call XPE...
5. Adjust the bright areas down... (If the bright areas are totally saturated pure white... You have nothing to work with... max is max...) When you are done adjusting... the sliced bitmap is changed.
6. Feather the darkened shape to blend with the bitmap below it.
7. Create a true color bitmap of both bitmaps...
8. Adjust the new image in XPE... to bring out what you can...
I was hoping for a mini-tutorial that sort of covered something we didn't know already... :rolleyes:
John, Mikes example was just a quickie one... Also, I still like the original dark one the best.
Granted, tools are only as good as the people that swing them (and as much time you put in)... As has been mentioned before - by just adding a curves tool to XPE would add some punch.
Note that I'm a not a real Photoshop user. So this is just a quick look at what mere three nodes on each channel does when using curves. And why XPE needs that feature... Yes, I do realize that a real Photoshop user would do much, much better :o (especially when using more than just curves :p ) but do realize I only spent less than 60 seconds "working" :rolleyes: at it.
Risto
hope ya dont mind gave a shot at bring the detail and keeping it dark also done in adobe lightroom
settings used
exposure +1.55
recovery 100
fill light 54
blacks 8
brightness +30
clarity 66
noise reduction 100
Now this thread has given me a great idea for a future challenge! - stay tuned. ;)
Meanwhile - Mikes thread is really interesting as it goes further than merely showing off nice photos. It's been showing how we all have different goals & preferrences when it comes to dealing with our digital photo shots.
I must admit, Xara isn't my choice for this task, but hey - if it works for others - then that's great.
Meanwhile - Mikes night shot has been a good example of how to get the best out of a not so good scene with only a pns digital cam.
I like what Mikes has done in post #12 - the neons are a bit blown out as has been mentioned.
Mikes selective brightening in post #14 compensates nicely and adds some balance with only a little clarity and contrast lost.
Problem is cameras don't capture what the eye see's in terms of variable light, so there's always a compromise.
In my version of Mikes photo below, I saved a copy of both examples in post #12 and dumped them into 'PhotoMatix' then used the Exposure Blending mode to combine the highlights and shadows from both pics and give a nicely balanced result with good contrast and detail without introducing lot's of noise and showing up jpg artifacts.
This is basic stuff for PhotoMatix which is capable of much more, but it was fast for this example ( just a few seconds )
Personaly I prefer to use Lightroom for my RAW developing, but PhotoMatix has proven handy for those really underexposed shots that need a bit more punch.
Edit: Thanks Mike S for taking the time to show what Lightroom can do.
Personally.. I would have tossed the shot... There is not really much you can do with it. The Neon is almost max'd and the rest is really dark... I am more familiar with using PS to adjust levels. It is much easier to lighten a dark shot than it is to darken a bright one. One can usually bring it in if you are within +-1. This shot is like -+6... bad in both extremes...:)
Take the neon signs from Risto's top pic, and combine with the last one Sledger did... and you've got it perfect!!!!
For me, if I were as into the whole photography/vectors thing, I would take the time (ardious I know) to literally, do each of the light sources in the entire pic, enhance them the way it looks in Risto's top pic, and then overlay it onto Sledger's last rendition.....
I have no idea if it would be possible.... but that's what I feel would give the ultimate effect in the end.
I feel like simply (even though it may bot be simple) croping the entire "area" around the lights, changes the building walls with it, etc. (but just in that area) Is there any way to do "each light individually"???
Hopefully Im explaining myself good??
Me, I would have loved to have used a Leica in Paris instead... But that wasn't the point of the thread... The point was the cigarette pack-sized snapshooter that Mike keeps in his pocket together with his cellphone when riding his Harley - and what can be squeezed out it from less than perfect shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by raynerj1
Risto
I'll say what I've said before - I'm no photographer - but I'm impressed with what you guys have got from the original.
Sure reinforces the point: "just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there" :D
Thank you HandDrawn.... I apologize if I was seeming to get off the point guys. I was merely stating that... even with the style cam Mike uses, he seems to get pics with plenty of potential, and it also seems that no matter which software you use.... my point is, the more time put into getting the most out of it, the better the results would be... and the potential for better and better quality and details seems endless given even just these few example above.... with not that much time involved....
(What Risto is thinking at this moment.... "Oh my God, he just keeps babbling....."):D
That's what I keep tellin my bank!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by handrawn
I actually think everyone has shown that there is always something that can be done with an otherwise less than perfect shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by raynerj1
Sometimes, you only have one chance at a picture, one 'shot' at capturing a memory, so I think it's worth the effort to try and improve it.
Just like film cameras, all that dcams do is to capture light and just like film cameras the result needs to be developed to bring out the best from that captured light. All Digital cameras have built-in jpeg (some use tiff) processing which can produce reasonable & often acceptable results for everyday snapshots, but mostly we are relying on the manufactures processesing choices here which isn't always ideal, this is where our beloved computers and software comes in :D
RAW is of course the better choice, but that's a whole new rave ;)
If you only have one shot, then you have to make the most of it. When I know the shot is gonna be tough, I take more than one. If the thumbnail on the camera, doesn't ring my chimes, then I slame it into manual and take the time to take a photograph. Hopefully... I will have something that is usable when I get back to my 'puter.
I have several digital cameras, but I just carry around my DSLR. Even a "snapshot" from a DSLR gives you more to work with. When it comes to cameras, a better lens makes a better picture.
Here is a bar shot I took last year... The first shot is under exposed, the second is over exposed and the third is about in the middle but still dark. The forth pic is a quickie fade from the third to the second. Took longer to write this paragraph then do the fade...:)