Why so dark, though? Are you shooting through a weird filter, or was it just dark? :D
I'd do that trick of simulating a split neutral density filter in Gimp to increase the dynamic range of the foreground, while still keeping the moody sky.
The result (http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/junk/IMG_1468nd.JPG) looks a bit artificial to me, but that could be because I've spent so long looking at the original. (What does anyone else reading think?)
It looks artificial, because the sky is too dark for the illumination of the things below. Try a less pronounced effect.
(You very occasionally get this effect in real life, if there is a dark cloud filling the sky you can see but things are still being illuminated by the sun behind you. It looks wrong then too)
Yeah, I think that's a leetle too far the other way. The true artist knows the value of restraint :D
It's true that your eyes play a big role in this. I get carried away sometimes when Gimping stuff and then when I look at it again after a break I go 'eeep, I can't believe how fake that looks'. So generally I take the slider to the point where I can see the effect, and then I back it off to the point where I just can't. That tends to be the right amount of whatever it is.
If you put a copy of the original in a layer above this one and tweak the opacity slider until the foreground's just a bit darker that ought to do it.
...incidentally the same pic is massively darker on my LCD at work. Which gives me three screens with significantly different results even before I consider other people's screens.
Have played around with the picture and iconised it and sent the results to you at the address given in user info. Just to see what would happen. I will entirely not be offended if you don't use them.
I've never seen Cambridge look so grim! I like this one (http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/gallery/photos/2005-08-25?display=IMG%5F1460.JPG#IMG_1460.JPG) lots, too, but that may just be because I'm a sucker for nice skys
The industrial foreground was really making the best of an available vantage point, but (lighting troubles aside as discussed above) I think the result is quite good. 1460 is the other one I really like - possibly could be improved by losing the very bottom.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 12:20 pm (UTC)I'd do that trick of simulating a split neutral density filter in Gimp to increase the dynamic range of the foreground, while still keeping the moody sky.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 12:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 12:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 12:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 01:05 pm (UTC)http://www.gimpguru.org/Tutorials/NDFilter/
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 02:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 03:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 03:59 pm (UTC)(S)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 04:10 pm (UTC)(You very occasionally get this effect in real life, if there is a dark cloud filling the sky you can see but things are still being illuminated by the sun behind you. It looks wrong then too)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 11:00 pm (UTC)It's true that your eyes play a big role in this. I get carried away sometimes when Gimping stuff and then when I look at it again after a break I go 'eeep, I can't believe how fake that looks'. So generally I take the slider to the point where I can see the effect, and then I back it off to the point where I just can't. That tends to be the right amount of whatever it is.
If you put a copy of the original in a layer above this one and tweak the opacity slider until the foreground's just a bit darker that ought to do it.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-28 12:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-01 04:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 12:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 12:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 01:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 01:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 12:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 12:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 12:45 pm (UTC)Gorgeous photo though.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 01:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 01:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 02:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-28 12:04 pm (UTC)"Cluck me harder"?
Maybe not.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-28 12:13 pm (UTC)<fx: reads about exposure compensation>
I'll try that next time. There was indeed a bit of room at the top on that one.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 02:58 pm (UTC)(but maybe I'm odd in liking overcast industrial looking sites...)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 06:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-27 11:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-28 07:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-28 03:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-28 04:44 pm (UTC)