dark exposure help?

[Porter]

Im gonna keep this simple... can anyone fix this? No matter what I try, it looks too green. There may be a morning, bottom of death valley, cloud haze influenced nature lighting thing happening here, but I dont remember it looking like this (after brightened) this is the full photo before editing. Feel free to download it...

dunes1 by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

[chrish]

I just opened it up the lousy windows 10 photo editing app., increased the brightness and the contrast a bunch and tweaked the white balance (color balance) a bit. Total time invested = 30 seconds.



It isn't a great fix, but it is on the way. You just need to open the original file in a photo editor and bring up the brightness and contrast.

[Porter]

Thats pretty much what Im getting as. I spent an additional 20 minutes probably trying different methods and variations with the same result of just plain ugly tinted like that. This shot below was taken two hours prior, on the drive in, right as the sun was peeking over the mountains, with my 90mm mac. Twice as dark as the photo above, but I was able to restore its natural look. I took the one above with a 18-55mm so I could Thats pretty much what Im getting as. I spent an additional 20 minutes probably trying different methods and variations with the same result of just plain ugly tinted like that. This shot below was taken two hours prior, on the drive in, right as the sun was peeking over the mountains, with my 90mm mac. Twice as dark as the photo above, but I was about to restore its natural look. I took the one above with a 18-55mm so I could fit everything into frame and it was just a last minute switch out and shoot before I bail out. Do you think its just the lens or quality of the lens? It was a nikon stock lens included in a $600 walmart package....


dunes a by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr



This shot was taken sometime between the two. You can get a good idea what kind of green the plants should be... before asking for advice, I was able to get the dunes a little better than your edit after putting in the time, but then the plants were fricken red

pup hab3g by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr



Im using photoshop cc btw...

[chrish]

To be fair to my last attempt, that was a very quick job using a program I never use.

I pulled the photo up in lightroom instead (I stopped using photoshop a few years ago) and managed this is a few seconds of tweaking.

It didn't need more contrast, just a bit more exposure and a tiny bit of white balance correction.



Here are the settings I changed (I'm not sure if LR uses the same scales as Photoshop or not) -



I used the color balance eyedropper and selected one of the presumably white rocks in the foreground. That gave me the basic color I wanted and I tweaked it a tiny bit manually from there.

The problem doesn't appear to be your lens. You simply underexposed this shot by one and a half stops.

If you don't already, you should shoot RAW (NEF). This gives you a lot more latitude to fix minor things like this on the computer.

Chris

[RobertH]

Here is what I could do using Affinity Photo.



Nicholas

[Porter]

Dude... chrish...


You rock man! That looks great. I notice you even matched it to the two latter photo's brightness. Awesome stuff. I think all 3 need to be brighten and vibrance a titch . But that is fix

All my shots are purposely under exposed like that. I do it because it gives me a sharper image than the staying brighter. Editing photos is a long process for me... Ihave a galaxy samsung note II work phone that displays pic in a high saturation, this phone which is more dulled out and less color, then my laptop that gives out a different color tone all together. So I fix the pic... upload it into both phones and keep adjust til I get a final result that looks good on all 3 media devices. I figure that way, the pics will look ok from just about everyone's set up.

That lens does have a little to do with it, I think tho... I actually cleaned it with visine eye drop liquid when I first bought the cam (nikon dslr d3200) because I didnt know you arent suposed to used that on dslr lenses lol I used visine all the time to clear my samsung ponit n shoot, no prob. So the uv protective layer has been completely burned off... I think that may have to do with it. I took the same shot with the 90mm mac right before that one and it came out in normal fixing ability...just didnt have the full view, only the dune in the middle.

I dont have the same settings in photoshop cc... no tint changer at all, or I dont know where to find it if there is one. I kinda got it close to what you got by adjust the others...like, I dont have a "heat" balance, but I have "color balance" that has a slider with yellow at one end and blue at the other. Do you have flickr? Any chance I van just download that from you? Its just that photo Im having the problem with...

[Porter]

Robert That looks better than what I could do! I like chrishs a little more because from my phone, his looks like it retained the natural color better. Im gonna try getting a version that is in between the two. Yours proves it can be brighter and still have the green

[chrish]

Dude... chrish...
All my shots are purposely under exposed like that. I do it because it gives me a sharper image than the staying brighter.

Actually, the way to capture the maximum amount of detail in an image is just the opposite. Because of some mathematical mumbo jumbo I neither understand nor care about, there is more pixel information contained in the brighter areas of a picture than in the darker areas. So if you overexpose a picture and darken it slightly in PS, there is detail in the lighter areas that can be recovered. But if you underexpose a photo, the darker areas don't have as much detail hidden in them. So if you try to bring up the exposure (lighten it) in PS, the computer algorithms have to "make up" the pixel information that is missing and this creates "noise" in the photo (usually colored specks).

You can test this by photographing the same object twice. In the first photo, overexpose it by two f/stops (if the camera wants an aperture value of f/16, shoot the photo at f/4.0 and the same shutter speed).
Then take an identical shot and underexpose it by two stops.

Now take those two images and open them in PS. Darken the light image 2 stops and brighten the dark image 2 stops. In theory, they should now look identical. But the dark one that you brought up two stops is more likely to have noise visible and may have lost details that are visible in the overexposed one.

You can read some of the arguments for and against this idea by Googling "Expose to the Right". The main argument is you are always better off getting the exposure correct in camera, but if you are to err, it is better to err towards overexposure as it is easier to correct later than underexposure.

[MonarchzMan]

I may also add that you might look into getting an X-Rite Color Checker. Essentially, this will allow you to do a few things. First, you can create a profile for a particular lens, camera body, and lighting environment that can be applied to photos later on. While this may not be ideal because lighting environment does change and no two are exactly the same, it does get you a closer ball park because lenses and camera sensors do have different color sensitivities. If you want moment to moment corrections, you can take a picture with the color checker in the photo and then your desired photo. This also gives you an 18% neutral gray card swatch that you can use to calibrate white balance.

[Porter]

Chrish, I do that all the time... when its dark morning or evening, taking the photo at a brighter setting is necessary but in normal light, super bright 12noon summer lighy, harsh light, ect... only going darker results in a sharp image. Idk why... I think I have figured out how to get a sharper image than what most think are possible ...like, you and the world of photographers think only the burry image is possible and nothing can be done, but I bend light like a jedi majician and make the impossible happen jk all jokes aside, maybe what you and that post are calling a sharp image is what I call too blurry and Im taking it a step farther...or my camera just sucks that bad lol

Heres an example of my desert shoot trials n error (original shots, not editing). Taken back to back in the most extreme worse conditions of light and angle... two steps darker/lighter like you mentioned. But you can easily see no editing can fix the result. The lighter is way bad. But this is the scenario I always face no matter what situation I shoot in...my darker shots always get sharper quality no matter what degree of noise and grain there is.

I actually have been liking grain more and more as I attempt a more artistic style of photography. Seems to have a more vintage quality like old film shots before DSLR clarity. I dont like it for every shot, but sometimes I do it on purpose or pick the shot with grain over the more clear shot... I spent most of my life going against the grain... time for me to relax and float down stream


DSC_0271 by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr


DSC_0270 by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

[Porter]

Dude... chrish...


Do you have flickr? Any chance I van just download that from you? Its just that photo Im having the problem with...

Can I have my photo back now please...? all fixed n stuff

Also, if you can fix this one (or anyone else?) I will be enternally greatful!!!! Otherwise, I have to toss it... An I love the obscure artistic shape value so much, Id hate to have to do that


DSC_0594 by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr


It sould look close to these matural colors as far as the snake goes. I think this shot was taking on a different colored rock or a different colored part of the same rock


panamint4 DSC_0640 final by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

[Porter]

I may also add that you might look into getting an X-Rite Color Checker. Essentially, this will allow you to do a few things. First, you can create a profile for a particular lens, camera body, and lighting environment that can be applied to photos later on. While this may not be ideal because lighting environment does change and no two are exactly the same, it does get you a closer ball park because lenses and camera sensors do have different color sensitivities. If you want moment to moment corrections, you can take a picture with the color checker in the photo and then your desired photo. This also gives you an 18% neutral gray card swatch that you can use to calibrate white balance.

Thanks for the tip! I do appreciate it, but this is my last year of photography. All my gear goes up in the closet after this last field herping post. Im already done shooting for the year and just editing photos at this point. I do plan to get a couple amphibian shots to add once the rain starts tho. I have enough for a decent post already and have accomplished enough with photography to impress a woman photographer if/when she ever comes along. Then we can learn together at that point or she can teach me. Thats basically the only reason I do anything...

[Porter]

Chrish, Im sorry... i got the shot confused. I think tjat is actually the same pose, different angel. The lighting just makes the rock color look different and i think maybe it was because the side of the boulder was a different color than the top of it

[chrish]

Here's a one minute fix. Probably took less than a minute actually.

I'm not sure why you are having trouble with this if you have Photoshop. Adjusting the exposure and color balance is a very simple fix?

[dthor68]

Porter, what I have always done is shoot in RAW, not JPEG. I open each image in Photoshop Elements and set the white balance using eye dropper in an area of the photo that is either white, grey or black and then tweak it from there. You have much more control with a RAW photo and all of your basic processing needs can be done easily in Elements, which cost like $75.00. I must add that underexposing your shots will add noise when you brighten them up. The thing to do is slightly overexpose the brightest/whitest part of the image and then back off in processing.

[Porter]

If you zoom in on the 2 gopher snakes shots, youll see that the darker one is sharper. I dont know what else can or needs to be said here that wont result in pointless argument

With all due respect, Im not asking for advice about what I shoulda done or should do next time. I also am not asking how to take a photo that doesnt have grain. Thats no brainer stuff... I get a sharper image with a little grain and grain doesnt bother me like it bothers the popular opinion. Im just trying to get 2 shots fixed (dunes looked green tinted and the rattler lacks color info due to angle to the sun), so I can add them to the 50+ Ive already fixed....

Robert, if youre still out there, can you upload your dune fix to flickr so I can download?

[Porter]

I spent hours photographing drangonflies in flight and tiny bugs sitting still.... Only going darker gets sharper. Sorry, but... true

[Porter]

Flying Dragonfly by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

aaq by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

ads by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

[dthor68]

If you zoom in on the 2 gopher snakes shots, youll see that the darker one is sharper. I dont know what else can or needs to be said here that wont result in pointless argument

With all due respect, Im not asking for advice about what I shoulda done or should do next time. I also am not asking how to take a photo that doesnt have grain. Thats no brainer stuff... I get a sharper image with a little grain and grain doesnt bother me like it bothers the popular opinion. Im just trying to get 2 shots fixed (dunes looked green tinted and the rattler lacks color info due to angle to the sun), so I can add them to the 50+ Ive already fixed....

Robert, if youre still out there, can you upload your dune fix to flickr so I can download?

Now pay attention No Brainer. The reason the dunes look green is because your WB is off. If you shoot in JPEG it will be more difficult to fix your WB than it will be if you shoot RAW. If you want to shoot in JPEG than you should invest in one of the many systems to get the proper WB. like grey cards. The dull color of the Rattlesnake is a simple fix. If the light you are using is harsh, expect the results to be harsh. Dude you need more help with your manners than your photography.

[Porter]

Now pay attention No Brainer. The reason the dunes look green is because your WB is off. If you shoot in JPEG it will be more difficult to fix your WB than it will be if you shoot RAW. If you want to shoot in JPEG than you should invest in one of the many systems to get the proper WB. like grey cards. The dull color of the Rattlesnake is a simple fix. If the light you are using is harsh, expect the results to be harsh. Dude you need more help with your manners than your photography.

The rattler shot isnt fixed, unless you call that shot photography enjoyable to look at. Im not gonna quote myself again, already tried that... So, I'll just say it, THIS IS MY LAST YEAR DOING PHOTOGRAPHY AND I HAVE ALREADY TAKEN THE SHOT I PLAN TO USE FOR MY LAST POST....This post is about fixing a shot...Not about asking why I dont shoot raw to save space on my card. Only one of us is having trouble paying attention...

I'm not going to go buy something to better my photography if I'm not going to be taking any more photography because that would be a "no-brainer "Lol

I compliment chrish on his work like a homie and i dont even know the guy. Ask for a download of his fix, no response, im not mad lol I just want the pic fixed. You guys seem more concered in pointing out my mistakes than helpinh me fix the shots. And now, I have a manner problem lol too much

Last post dudes! No worries

[Porter]

Alright this post is officially over I'm not responding to this child ish BS thanks for the help guys and Robert thank you for being cool man

[Porter]

Im being an A-hole.... the thing with me is Im butt hurt over making a fool out of myself trying to impress some herper girl who never really liked me to begin with. Seemed like every step of the way, someone came out of nowhere to prove I was doing something wrong or being just plain stupid....and half the time, they were right So, Im probably being more sensitive towards this than I would be towards things other than this whole field herping stuff. I got no idea who you guys are on the other end of the computer.... to me, your just a reminding why I suck in her world lol

Thanks for taking the time to better those photos and give advice for future reference. I cant wait to get outta here lol Just trying to get together one last self accomplishment so I got someyhing good to remember

Peace

[chrish]

One of the reasons we haven't been able to help you more specifically is because you are removing the EXIF data from your photos during processing/upload. We can't see what camera settings you are using.

If you zoom in on the 2 gopher snakes shots, youll see that the darker one is sharper. I dont know what else can or needs to be said here that wont result in pointless argument

It isn't a mystery. The darker one is sharper for one simple reason - the shutter speed was faster....which is also why it is underexposed and darker. It is all interrelated. You need to learn to expose your photo correctly while maintaining adequate shutter speed to make it sharp enough. Generally, you should choose a shutter speed that is at least the inverse of the focal length of the lens. If you can't do this, you need to adjust the aperture or ISO accordingly (or use flash or a tripod).

If you aren't already familiar with this stuff, read online about the relationships between shutter speed, aperture and ISO and how they all influence exposure, image quality, grain/noise, etc..



I'm not sure why you are having trouble "downloading" the photo I posted? Just right click on it and save it.

[Porter]

The reason I posted the pics of the dragonflies in flight is to show you guys the detail in the wings, while flying. You guys repeatedly are trying to convince my that Im not doing something right when I manually change settings myself....that I shouldnt shoot dark. But, how that conveys to me is, that Im not doing it like the post you read that was written by some other photographer that helped you better your own photography. Im not concerned witj that. I tried that already and I also personally asked advice from one of the best dragonfly photographers I know. Now, his adive was helpful for insight, however it did not work for my camera. Not only that, but he shoot 150 macro (I think) and I shoot 90mm macro. And because of different angles to the sun and time of day lighting, I had to just figure it out on my own.

That dragonfly was just a tiny object in the original photo. I cropped out at least 50% but probably closer to 80% and you can see the fine detail (with some noise) of a fast moving object. Now youre just going to have to believe me, that I am happy with that result and dont need a better understanding of how to take a sharper image. I just need an already photographed dune photo fixed, because it wasnt taken with my 90mm macro, it was taken with a 18-55mm crap lens that was cleaned by visine that removed the protection layer.

The rattler shot has a few extra external factors going on there...
1. It was taken, not only in harsh morning light, but underneath a blanket of cloud haze the was covering the sky in between the sun and photoshoot. That rattler should have way more color but there is an over natural amount of white in that photo. More than just shooting toward the sun.

2. I cut up a card board box and used duct tape to make a hand protection case to fit over the camera and my hand so I could get safe close up macro shots of that snake. There was a full layer of duct tape added to the outside of the cardboard to add extra fang protection.

3. Billiards...the art of geometry: The light from the sun, shinning though the thick blanket cloud haze, and then reflecting off of the shinning duct tape, projecting that white onto the shiny reflective snake scales, and then back at the mirror like camera lens, is why that shot has too much white for you guys to fix. No worries, all the rattlrr shots turned out bad because of those damn clouds and tape, which I probably wouldnt have attempted if it wasnt my last day of a long trip with little to no sleep.

I dont know why the exif info doesnt display... someone else had a problem seeing it as well. I can see it and I certainly didnt remove it...here is quote from the post topic below this one because I simply dont want to write it again. Lol Also, look beneath the qoute because Im gonna write something else you might overlook thinging youve read everything

There is definitely motion going on in the beetle pics...but Im a pretty damn good accurate shot and those were the best captures of that sequence taking inbetween movement (the other shots more blurry) and the first shot posted above was when the bird wasnt moving and I had a dead center focus point on his eye. So I think you are right about it reacting to background objects... I took a desert trip recently and was so sleep-deprived and trying to change settings on my camera to compensate for the gloomy Cloud Haze and bright Sun of the Des that I may have changed something in settings and forgot to put it back how it was...

Could these settings have something to do with the focus on the back ground objects?

20160726_192732 by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

20160726_192721 by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr



I think you have to switch to desktop view for the exif info. it shows up on my end as long as its not mobile view...excuse my retarded phone ...meshed the page info boxes together LOL but as you can see in screenshot the information is below the photo and that info is For the first picture at the top of this post. I also took a picture of the properties from my laptop for one of the bug eating photos. check out all the combined settings and tell me what you think now that you can see everything or if you need more info let me know and I'll photo and post it... Thanks man


Screenshot_2016-07-26-19-36-36 by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

20160726_192531 by California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr

I remember reading about spot tune In the reviews for this lens when I was thinking of buying it... I really don't want to do it unless I have to so hopefully one of these settings are set wrong or maybe my f-stop Approach ISO and all that stuff is just whack... LOL I DK. the lens is a Tamron telephoto plus Pro 300 with ultrasonic silent Drive autofocus and VC SP f - 4 - 5.6

If I click on your pic and click save, I get a much lower quality blurry version of my photo, than you get from downloading the original file from flickr. Ive know this for years because I dont save photos on my my computers, flickr is my photo storage Before I had flickr, few years back I made a website on pixflix or some crap like that. Well, I had a comcast email that I used to upload my photos to it. I broke up with my gf, ended comcast, and wasnt able to log in and get my old photos to upload to flickr. I had forgotten the password. So, I had to go to the website I created, and steal my own photos by clicking on them and then saving them I then realized what bad quality you get when you do it that way.

No worries!! Ive decided to trash can both of the sots. I have a decent enough head shot of the snake that I fixed before posting here and that shot of the dunes taken in the dark at first sunrise, look good enough for me. I actually did a pic count yesterday, and when I said I thought I had 50+ shots I already fixed... turns out that is actually 200 lol and Ive still got at least another 20 to edit So, I have to start throwing out some of the pics I have done already as it is. So, no worries...all is good

[Porter]

Photography is an art... I understand that the majority of photographers look at it like it's a car engine. Perfect isn't always best. Remove all the grain, in my trail n error, and I lose what Im trying to capture. I like the original starwars before they were altered to meet the standards of an HD world. But the hardest thing in the world to find, Is that original artistic look... they are doing better now tho ...black belly infinity baby

[Porter]

George shouda listened to kurt when he made 1,2,&3... but, then again cobain is pretty hard to understand

https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8& ... loom+video


..then again, maybe he did but only after kurt listened to him first

[Porter]

I cant find an interview where the director of the video is explaining how or why it was kurts idea to do the video, but they used the same cameras that were used in the 50s for those old shows. They new starwars films are resorting back to old tactics in creating these new movies (sorry, I write an inch and expect a mile of in depth poetic metaphoric ideal translation). Both artists I believe had the motivation of teaching morals and spreading a positive message to the world

I did find this that goes into a little of different aspects of the vide, but still helps transcend my outlook on art and photography which is similar in regards to what Im trying to express

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CkaPrsoZE

[chrish]

1. The reason you can see your EXIF data and we can't is because you are logged in to your Flickr account.

2. The reason we can't see your EXIF data is because you have that setting disabled in Flickr. You have to go to your profile settings and unselect "Hide Your Exif Data".

3. The photos in question are underexposed. It isn't anything more complicated that not enough light getting to the sensor. Period, that's it. This doesn't happen because of cloudy skies, reflections, damaged lens elements, duct tape or any other such rationalization.

4. I don't know which photo it goes to (I can't find DSC0776 in your Flickr account), but based on that EXIF data you showed us, you have the camera set to underexpose by 2 stops. (Exposure Bias = -2). If that photo isn't underexposed then you can start looking at duct tape, cardboard boxes and cloudy days as the reason. But if it is "dark", it is because you have the camera set up to take it that way.

5. The reason the photo I fixed isn't as high a resolution as the one of flickr is because I started with the picture you posted, not your Flickr full sized image. The image I posted has exactly the same resolution (i.e. "quality") as the original you posted. Right click on the one you posted here and compare that to the fixed version and you will see they are the same. If you aren't happy with the assistance others have given you, fix it yourself.

6. You may know some guy who has taken a lot of dragonfly pictures. But the people you have asked for help from here have taken tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of herp shots going back 20, 30, and 40+ years. Many of us learned our craft back in the film and slide days when you actually had to know what you were doing because film and processing cost a bunch of $$.

You came here asking for help. When people offered help your response was "I already know everything" and "I can't be doing something wrong! It must be the box, duct tape, sun, lens, etc.". When people tried to explain why that wasn't true, you went off on a defensive rant.

This site is a great source for getting assistance with herp photography problems. People offer their time and expertise simply for the pleasure they gain from helping others with something they are passionate about. If that wasn't what you wanted, you came to the wrong place.

Lastly, if you are a teenager, I apologize. You will acquire a more thorough understanding and patience with practice.

[Porter]

If you knew that the photo you fixed wasnt full resolution...and you knew that if I click save it from this post, that I would be getting a lesser quality of the photo you fixed, then why are you only giving me the option to get my photo back from you fixed but less quality? ...its like your f*cking with me man...saying, neener neener, i can fix it, but you cant have it back with full quality lol

I already wrote more than once, over and over, that I just wanted some one to fix the shot. That is stated right at the top. "Lets keep this simple" means...just fix the shot lol

Im trying to be nice about this when Im writing, "thanks for the advice and tips." But, really how many times do I have to say that this was never a post asking how to shoot photography in the future... i really dont care. Simple as that. Im done with photography and that was a decision I made last year and isnt going to change.

I know I jumped on the boat of taking a post subject of course, with some other people on other posts on here before. In fact I think you were the one or one of them...one the indian reservation post, right? So, this is obviously just a revenge move on your part, pushing my buttons and messing with my head. Large part of the reason ill be leaving this year, along with my own personal reasons.

Kurt Cobain created good art/music masked and covered by a shitty grungey distorted overlay. Ive always liked his artistic ideals...so distortion doesnt bother me. And I like the results i normally get when shooting darker exposures. I got an art photo from that gopher snake shot that is gonna blow your mind. Im super stoked on it. along with all the other shots I took, created, fixed, enhance, whatever, all by my little self... no worries

Photography is an art... non right or wrong way to do it.

If grain was something that is never supposed to be in a photo... they wouldnt have a tool in photoshop type editors to add grain/noise to your photos... its art! Youre not wrong and neither am I...

Peace

[Porter]

Also, I dont like a lot of aspects of even some of my favorite artists... like a lot of cobain stuff, especially his art, is very disturbing and too nasty. I understand what the message is and why hes saying it, but I dont feel the same way. Like, I dont do drugs or some cigerettes for example. In fact I rarely even drink a beer... I just like his opinions about art and can relate to some of it because my mom was a heroine addict and attempted suicide several times. So, its apart of me whether I like it or not... but, Id never kill myself or take heroine.

...so, dont take it personal that i dont take your advice. Besides, I only take advice from women anyway

[Porter]

.

[Porter]

Also, I kinda disregarded your 1, 2, & 3's before because this is getting too redundant, and it would take to long to respond to each number with quoting things Ive already said, so here it is again...

I shot those shots underexposed on purpose because it gives me a sharper image...said that numerous times... Dragonfly

You obviously dont need to see the exif info...because you already fixed the shot.

And I know what effect the duct tape had on those shots, because I took a ton of shots under the same conditions, even the same morning at the same local, all underexposed like I normally do, and all the rattler shots are unfixible (nearly unfixable, i fixed a few, meaning i got the natural color info), because i only needed hand protection for that particular snake.

And even tho I wrote, "feel free to download it" right at the top with what I wanted, it should be a given that fixing the original pic at its best quality available is what any and every photographer would want.

And if your gonna bring up how they used dark rooms to develop photos on film, then my dark exposure method to capturing and retaining nature color and fine detail shouldnt sound so crazy...even if you never read anywhere

Im not a teenager but i do agree this was childish

[Porter]

I just think a better way to go about this may have been to just fix the shot, if you wanted to, and then say, "heres your shot fixed! I made it look as if it was my own. Sand looks like real sand, theres no green tint, the bushes are green, and the sky is blue." Not, "heres this crappy quick fix I did in 30 seconds." "ok, here it is again fixed but you cant have it" " I did this crappy one in 10 seconds,...I dont know why you cant do it yourself?"

lol funny, but kinda messed up

[Porter]

Also, if it wasnt already assumed due to the fact Im not asking for help on how to fix an underexposed picture... all my underexposed shots (1000+) look beautiful with just a couple clicks/less than a minute or two of photoshoping. The only shots Im having problems with are the shots taken with the duct tape and a different lens Sorry...but thats a fact

What takes a long time for me in editing, comes after that... uploading that finished photo onto two different cell phones to compare how they look on each device and finding an equal medium with further adjustments so that it will look good on both phones and my laptop. that way there is a better chance my photo will look good on several different devices as opposed to just one