Woot For Ps Tutorials

[Davetrials]

firstly just like to say THIS IS NOT NOT MY PIC!!!!!!!!!!! no idea whos they are i just edited it

Im proud:)

Original..

Edited...

Edited April 27, 2007 by Davetrials

[Smo™]

I wonder who'll ask why the edited version is called 'smoassw'.

[Urban mammoth]

looks really nice

do you mind telling how you did it? especially the clouds!

thanks

dan

[Davetrials]

i had one raw file and converted it twice.

1st one i added loads of exposure to give the foreground some shazam.

then i opened the same folder and messed with the raw settings to get the clouds all murkey and grey.

then put one on top of the other.

thats BRIEFLY how i did it, theres alot more to that picture than just that.. not to sound big headed

Edited April 27, 2007 by Davetrials

[Pekr!]

Digital photo ***, nice photo dave

Cheers,

Stefan.

[JonMack]

Kinda like HDR...?

[Tomm]

I would never have thought to stretch it like that (the left hand side has been stretched), but it works quite well. The rest of the work is fairly basic though, I think you'll find most digital photography people will mess with their photo's to an even greater degree.

[Davetrials]

ye well ive very new to mesing with photos at such a level

i cant belive how much better it looks.

[Walleee]

How come the boats get brighter when the clouds come?

[JT!]

How come the boats get brighter when the clouds come?

Magic.

What's all this RAW stuff about. It's about the only setting on my cam that i dunno what it is.

[Tomm]

With landscape photography, there is usually some difficulty in creating pictures with the right exposure for the foreground AND the background. It's often a case of either/or. In the olden days ( ) people used graduated filters in front of their cameras with the darker bit over the top of the lens. This makes the sky darker and allows you to expose for the foreground properly. This keeps detail in both the foreground and in the background. This is a Good Thing®.

You can get a similar effect in photoshop on a jpeg, by selectively changing the curves of the picture - I.e. make the sky darker. But you will lose detail this way, and the more you darken (or lighten) something, the more detail you will lose. With RAW, though, there is more colour depth and you can use photoshop (or whatever RAW editor) to push the exposure even further away from how it was taken, without as much detail being lost - compared to jpeg.

What Dave has done is to use the RAW convertor to make two copies of the picture - one darker than the other. He's then superimposed one on the other one (using layers in p-shop) and probably used a layer mask to let parts of the underneath layer to show through.

[Davetrials]

exactly what tom said, i just didnt no any of the big words lol.