Timeline for How can I make the sky in this photo more vibrant?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2012 at 21:29 | comment | added | Sonic Soul | ah my bad, they are probably just blocked on work firewall. thanks | |
| May 23, 2012 at 21:23 | comment | added | Guffa | @SonicSoul: Perhaps the image hosting site went down? They are back now... | |
| May 23, 2012 at 20:45 | comment | added | Sonic Soul | how come the photos from all the posts disappeared? | |
| May 23, 2012 at 16:48 | comment | added | Guffa | @SonicSoul: For photo critiques you can for example try photosig.com | |
| May 23, 2012 at 15:10 | vote | accept | Sonic Soul | ||
| May 23, 2012 at 15:10 | comment | added | Sonic Soul | wow.. just wanted to say thanks for all the great responses! this has been very helpful! Is there a more appropriate place where i could post my photos to be critiqued ? | |
| May 23, 2012 at 8:28 | comment | added | clabacchio | Sure, I may be biased by the comparison with the others, but still it's a bit too strong for me (very subjective). I find Daniel's more relaxing (maybe that's where I'm wrong, since the OP wants it vibrant :D) | |
| May 23, 2012 at 8:21 | comment | added | Guffa | @clabacchio: The point of the question is that the original doesn't look right, so you shouldn't use the original as a reference for what's right... | |
| May 23, 2012 at 0:52 | comment | added | Damian Powell | +1 for shooting jpeg but setting an appropriate white balance in camera. | |
| May 22, 2012 at 13:20 | comment | added | clabacchio | A bit too blue for me :) especially compared to the original | |
| May 22, 2012 at 12:56 | history | edited | Guffa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 19 characters in body
|
| May 22, 2012 at 11:56 | comment | added | Guffa | @SonicSoul: You only have to do a lot of post processing if there is something wrong with the exposure, normally it's just small adjustments. Having a more expensive camera means that it will expose better in difficult situations, and you will have a better material even if you have to post process. A less expensive camera might have produced something that wouldn't even be usable for post processing. | |
| May 22, 2012 at 11:47 | comment | added | Sonic Soul | nice, that is definitely much closer to what it looked like. so if im going to do so much post processing, what's the point of getting a camera like D7000 which is supposed to have a great image sensor. I could take this photo with a D40, and after all the adjustments it would come out the same? | |
| May 22, 2012 at 7:52 | history | edited | Guffa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 277 characters in body
|
| May 22, 2012 at 7:46 | history | answered | Guffa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |