Old 03-07-2008, 03:23 AM   #1
Tgranville
Senior Member
 
Tgranville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 258
Send a message via AIM to Tgranville Send a message via Yahoo to Tgranville
Default Underexposed?

Ive only been at this photography thing for a bit over a year and am learning new things everyday. Where is the underexposure in this?

Any help would be appreciated.

Tom

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=361974186
__________________
"Never argue with a stupid person. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

My RP.net Photos

My Flickr Photos
Tgranville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2008, 03:45 AM   #2
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,023
Send a message via AIM to Walter S
Default

Exposure looks nice, im not liking the background to much though. Anxious to see what others have to say.
Walter S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2008, 03:59 AM   #3
JBCagle7073
Alpha Phi Psi
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kannapolis, NC
Posts: 264
Send a message via AIM to JBCagle7073
Default

I'm not too keen on the background as well. It's overall kind of dark, and that may be where they are saying it's underexposed since the background makes up so much of the composition. I would wonder if they would reject it for bad motive or poor esthetics if the exposure would have been better on the background.
__________________
Duty is the most sublime word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less.- Robert E. Lee
JBCagle7073 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2008, 04:52 AM   #4
JBCagle7073
Alpha Phi Psi
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kannapolis, NC
Posts: 264
Send a message via AIM to JBCagle7073
Default

Disregard the post duplicated
__________________
Duty is the most sublime word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less.- Robert E. Lee
JBCagle7073 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2008, 09:27 PM   #5
a231pacific
Senior Member
 
a231pacific's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 822
Default

The white crossing signs and the white on the gates is sort of gray. I think that's the underexposure they are talking about. Use levels to whiten your whites!

Michael Allen
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_0269-2.jpg
Views:	107
Size:	163.8 KB
ID:	2591  
a231pacific is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2008, 05:35 PM   #6
Joey Bowman
Senior Member
 
Joey Bowman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hudson, NC
Posts: 358
Default

If you have the original large file open it up.

brighten it up a little using curves, then mess around with the levels a bit so it isnt so warm. I think the shot is pretty good and with a little work should be able to go on here.


One question though, why are you saving your photos at 1 pixel per inch???
Joey Bowman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2008, 10:14 PM   #7
denvillerailfan
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: a house
Posts: 71
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey Bowman
One question though, why are you saving your photos at 1 pixel per inch???

what's the 96 dpi then?
Am I missing something?
denvillerailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2008, 11:29 PM   #8
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

For web use, pixels per inch doesn't matter. Inches don't matter. All that matters is a) the number of pixels on each side (1024x768, for example), and b) the amount of compression of those pixels (so when you Save As in PS Elements, you specify a value of 1 (most compression) to 12 (least compression).
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2008, 02:51 AM   #9
Joey Bowman
Senior Member
 
Joey Bowman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hudson, NC
Posts: 358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
For web use, pixels per inch doesn't matter. Inches don't matter. All that matters is a) the number of pixels on each side (1024x768, for example), and b) the amount of compression of those pixels (so when you Save As in PS Elements, you specify a value of 1 (most compression) to 12 (least compression).

So when you specify a particular value its going to affect the ppi? Ive never heard of that...


As for saying that ppi doesnt matter for web use, it does. The higher the ppi the longer the photo is going to take to show up on a particular page (more noticeable on slower computers). Not to mention it will eat up more bandwidth.


I was just curious why he saved the image at 1 ppi, (at least thats what PS 7.0 is telling me). Ive never heard of or seen anyone do that. Im used to seeing 72, or 96 being the standard for web use.
Joey Bowman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2008, 10:41 AM   #10
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey Bowman
So when you specify a particular value its going to affect the ppi? Ive never heard of that...


As for saying that ppi doesnt matter for web use, it does. The higher the ppi the longer the photo is going to take to show up on a particular page (more noticeable on slower computers). Not to mention it will eat up more bandwidth.


I was just curious why he saved the image at 1 ppi, (at least thats what PS 7.0 is telling me). Ive never heard of or seen anyone do that. Im used to seeing 72, or 96 being the standard for web use.
No, sorry. What matters for time to show up is only the file size. That is what eats up bandwidth. And file size is determined by pixels and compression.

Now, in your software and the way to use it, you may be controlling the pixels and compression through the ppi, but the ppi themselves do not matter.

Also, think about it, if ppi really, really mattered, then, if 72 or 96 were "standard," a ppi of 1 would essentially result in an image of just a few dots, not a detailed image of a train. It would be 1/72 or 1/96 of the same quality.

PPI does not matter for on-screen display. Printers can respond to that information, but not monitors.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.