Altering your photos

I generally write in BBC BASIC for Windows, which will only work on a Mac running XP (if at all; try it).

I have recently written some versions in C#, which is supposed to be independent of the machine, but you'd have to download and install the (large) ".NET Framework" from Microsoft first. I've just uploaded a C# facility called BMPEffects to my website - you need to follow this link exactly:  http://www.tonytooth.co.uk/BMPEffects.exe

See if it works. Once again you MUST download the (free) ".NET Framework" from Microsoft which is here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=0856eacb-4362-4b0d-8edd-aab15c5e04f5&displaylang=en

By all means, anyone try the BMPEffects facility, and see whether it works OK. You may find it only fits properly on a 1280x1024 display (or bigger). If this turns out to be true, let me know and I'll do a 1024x768 version. 

If your photos a bit dark and you have photoshop  or  photoshop elements 

Try Layers/duplicate layer.

Set the layer mode to screen 100% opacity and repeat or tweak  as nesscessary.
I sell textures on the internet and they obviously have to be top class ,I always edit my photos even if its cropping ,resizing, optimising for net.

No point uploading a huge file that'll tie up your compuer for ages when theres an easy fix.

Often  I'll   deliberateley shoot underexposed knowing  I can fix darkness but a blurred photo is useless.

Just tweaking levels can sometimes give you real noise and horrid oversaturation. this method doesnt and looks far more natural.

I'm hearing some very good things about Adobe Lightroom from a couple of my chums. They seem to think it does all they need without resorting to Photoshop. As I'm doing a course in Photoshop I'll stick with CS3 as I find it all pretty fascinating but it is rather pricey but there again it's a huge & powerful tool. 

Photographers have always altered their pictures in the darkroom. I know that a certain elite few claimed that they never altered anything not even cropping at all. I am, & never will be able to produce perfect results by just depressing the shutter release even with all the advances the digital cameras are providing. If I tried to just print my shots direct from the camera I fear I'd soon become less involved with photography. I suppose I just love to chase the ultimate dream, a perfect image. It's rather good to chase the impossible!

Ansel Adams spent huge amounts of time on his prints within the darkroom. Software is just another tool. Ultimately the individual using the software will have a idea on where they want to take the image and whether the results are satisfactory.

Personally as I was brought up on a diet of slides, I tend to concentrate on getting the image how I want it at the taking stage, which nearly always means using additional filters.

As far as I concerned if someone wants to merge multiple images and change the fabric of the image to achieve an image which gives them pleasure, well thats just fine.

I too took many slides and got a lot of pleasure from them. We took a few holidays in the Greek Islands and the light was just incredible making the Kodachrome ISO rating of 25 perfect. It's great to end up with a well saturated slide. Although I use Photoshop more & more I try to keep the process simple as the end result should be looking not too false in my view.  

Going back to slides, I can't really say I miss the hot projectors, the popping slides and the risk of feally boring others with "just a couple hundred shots" of Ios, Allonissos, et al. Now I put the slides in my scanner and try not to fiddle too much once the image pops up on the computer screen and any slide shows on dvd tend to last a maximum of ten minutes and even then I am wary about boring people. So I'd better end this post....