Comments

Mandk wrote on 10/28/2004, 11:02 AM
That is awesome. Fits perfectly with a project I am working on (video of marching band on field at sunset with far side stand reflection causing a significant back light issue). I was going to issue it as is but now it can be repaired.

Thanks for the timely information.
apit34356 wrote on 10/28/2004, 11:17 AM
Nice example! I use this old phototshop trick in Vegas a lot, but always wonder how to clearly explain it to a non PS user. Not too many words or symbolic references, just a clean example! Great work!
jkrepner wrote on 10/28/2004, 11:48 AM
Agreed, nice example.

Thanks.
wcoxe1 wrote on 10/28/2004, 1:51 PM
Nothing like experience and a good brain. And thanks for sharing both.
farss wrote on 10/28/2004, 2:50 PM
A good tutorial. Two comments, due to the low res of the sample images it's hard to see the differences, perhaps adding a 'Click here to see full size' button would help.
Secondly, I hope no one takes this to mean that you can fix gross over or under exposure. I'm sure everyone here knows what I mean, I just wish some of my clients did.
Bob.
cheroxy wrote on 10/28/2004, 3:51 PM
So simple, yet so effective.
Thanks
johnmeyer wrote on 10/28/2004, 7:11 PM
I don't know why I never thought of using a mask to selectively change the "exposure." I do it all the time for still photos.

The one thing that needs emphasizing is that in most cases you definitely need to feather the edges of your cookie cutter mask A LOT. Otherwise you end up with a hard line of demarcation that "exposes" (pun intended) what you did.
Grazie wrote on 10/29/2004, 1:39 AM
Now we start playing! . . How about ND filter OR soft filter OR Polarizer . . get them skies really blue! . .. yes I know . . What you aint got . er . .you aint got! But maybe a darker version for the foreground and showing blue skies I could "lift" the lower part of the scene? Well? Not so impossible?

Grazie