Hi anonymous voter,
who ever you are, I would be interested in the reason why you gave me only 1 star for this picture.
What is wrong with the picture?
Again I have some ideas.
1. Again a bit dark, and I keep my monitor very bright.
2. Again the skyline could be nearer the top of the frame.
3. In some of your photos I notice a greenish hue in the sky, and it's quite noticeable in this one.
I'm curious. I assume your pix are scanned prints. Do some of your prints look a bit green in the sky? Do you not see the green that I'm seeing? Maybe it's just me or my monitor?? :-)
this picture truly does not deserve only one star. I have given 4 due to the fantastic view at fantastic weather. What could perhaps be improved: I would cut off most of the sky so that the rest covers only 1/5 of the picture. When you do this, the mountains will look double impressive.
thanks for your comments. Yes, I'm not yet satisfied with my work on my scans. These are scanns from negatives. The prints look totally different, not green but blue. I changed it already, since the scan is much greener. But I have just started to work with software on pictures a few days ago. So I still need a little bit training. Which software do you use?
I will work on it.
I just started a few days ago with working on scanned pictures. So I'm a total newbie ;o). I don't know how to cut off a picture yet. Which software do you use?
Thanks for the 4 stars ;o). I myself would have given 3 stars, because I like it more if I have a big mountain on a page than such a panorama.
For example, the Dom-photo from Nadelgrat: I find it better than this picture. I would have given my Dom-photo 4. Or what do you think? In general, I'm very interested in your comments, because I think I can learn very much from you. At present, I do not have any more digi-photos. So I have to work on those, I already submitted.
Is it your own film scanner you're using? What brand and model is it?
I use a film scanner also, but I shoot slides outdoors. I've scanned some negatives, and you're right that they don't look anything like the prints. I use Corel PhotoPaint for color balancing and Paint Shop Pro for everything else. Can't afford PhotoShop! Even though it's a film scanner, I usually get rather cool scans, especially when there is snow in the scene. It seems that the problem is that the scans have too little dark green in them, so I usually adjust the scan to accommodate. Then when I get the photo into Corel I can usually get a decent color balance. I started scanning my slide collection in 1997, and now that I have something to do with them I take lots more photos now than ever! :-)
I'd be happy to take a stab at adjusting one of your photos if you would like to send me one. I scan them at a minimum of 1752x1168 pixels, then crop and correct and save it as "originals". Then I can resize them for any purpose. So if you would like me to try one, send it as high-res as you are comfortable about sharing with a perfect stranger. ;-)
thanks for your great offer!! Yes, I would really like to send you one of my photos. But what should I excactly do? What is "high-res"?
I have had a test version of Paint Shop Pro for some weeks with which I played a little bit on my photo on my profile page. But unfortunately, it does not work anymore since it was only a test version. I liked it. Would you recommend me to buy that?
Now, I worked with Irfanview on my mountain-pictures. I have also a CD-ROM from my scanner with Ulead Photo Express. I have not installed it yet. Do you know it? Has the Corel Word Perfect Suite PhotoPaint? In this case, I should have it on a CD-ROM.
Actually, I did not scan the negatives by myself but gave it to an internet-shop which did it for me. In the future, I will get a Photo-CD directly with each development (is this the correct word?) of any film for a little fee.
Cheers and many thanks in advance!
Not worth 1at all it is a good 3.
My comments are like the others too much sky and the colour is off but I think it was a good print to start.
Just a tech note here and that is how one exposes for Scanning??
There is alot of things one has to think about. Most if not all of my work is done on Slides and I expose for the colour sepration process which means I under expose most of my shots by 1/3 to 1/2 a stop.
What this means is when I scan in my slidesI usally get junk. "Hence most of my pics are not uploaded". When I scan negitives I get better results.
Why?? the reason is most scaners are designed for under exposed or properly exposed neg pictures and all scaners are different so pic a that comes out nice on one scanner might be junk on another. So I do not try to expose for future scanning too much bother.
This was fimly illistarted to me when a friend of mine in the GA business showed me the difference between his 25,000$ scanner and the 500$ scanner and it is amazing.
That commercal scanner takes into account the type of Film (I use Kodacrome which has a very thick emulsion and thus makes for poor scanning), the overall tone of the pic and its graphic nature it even automaticlly highlights and removes dust specks from the scan if you want it to do that.
Anyway the point here is I never judge on the quality of the scan that would be unfair one should only judge on the general image itself.
The best solution I can see is to use a digital camera at least it skips the scanning stage.