RAW pic here, Request to seniors edit it & please share your skills for new students

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

Personally, I'm the complete opposite to Troy - I use paid for products such as Windows, Photoshop, Microsoft Office (and many more) - and are more than happy to have paid for a licence to use them.

---

I certainly believe you also have the right to do whatever you please, except I ask that you don't use Microsoft specific formats (like .doc(x) .xls(x)) that only enable vendor lock-in and unrightfully stomp on the competition. Various European governments require use of open document formats to prevent monopolies from controlling inter- and intra-government communication. It is so important that we stop using the Microsoft Office file formats because they are only effectively generated using Microsoft proprietary software. I'm not okay with using Microsoft Office myself, but I wil accept any open document format even if it is generated by Microsoft products.

This is one of my prerequisites for applying to jobs/internships. If they only accept a .doc resume, I keep looking for other opportunities.

Of course there is also the .psd format, and various other proprietary formats, but you can't get them all at once (don't quote me about .psd, I haven't done my research). Lets just start with the Office formats :) They seem like the most widely used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

At the end of the day it's business (the commercial exchange of values for want of a better definition) that keeps the global economies turning over.

---

Business is a very important part of open source development. It will be a different type of business, but business nonetheless. Companies like Red Hat and Canonical provide services for their products, and companies like OpenLogic provide enterprise level support for open source software packages that aren't even affiliated with for-profit organizations. Everything needs to change, and it may take a long time.

Richard Stallman is very radical which makes it easy to dismiss him as crazy, but I for one am proud to be a follower of the Church of Emacs. Call me crazy!

Edit: GIMP has been 90% ported to the new GEGL core. Pretty soon we will have arbitrary bit-depth mode, adjustment layers and much much more! Also, GMIP had resynthesis before Adobe called it "content aware fill".

Here's mine. It's similar to Darren's, but done in Lightroom 4.

1. White balance 3220K
2. Exposure +1.01
3. Contrast +15
4. Shadows -24
5. Highlights -2 (as if that made much difference...)
6. Clarity +44
7. Vibrance +100
8. Cropped panoramic
9. Removed tree on left, and that wee red light in the sky with LR's spot healer
10. I then played with the blue channel of the Tone Curve, lowering it slightly at the left.

I've been living outside London for nearly 5 years, but I have memories of the sky being that colour at night, from the reflection of the city lights.

It's a great photo; thanks Sachin for letting us play with the RAW file. It was a good learning experience for me.

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...qqJjw7Z-XL.jpg

Tony

Hi Sachin,

From one senior to another, here is my rendering. I edited the exposure and highlights in ACR, then in CS5 I adjusted the shadow and highlights. I used the linear contrast curve, in the curves menu and then I converted it to monochrome with Nik Silver Efex's antique plate filter. It is amazing how many variations one can come up with! Gillie

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7038/6...5c13dc44_c.jpg

All of the images I see in this thread are wonderful renderings of the scene according to personal interpetations, but I notice that no one seems to straightening the bridge in the crops...wonders why.

New here, but just had to comment on what a great thread! Great looking interpretations of the original. It just goes to show the creative nature of folks. I have recently ventured into DSLR world, and am still very new to RAW processing, but I gave it a whirl. I hope to learn a good bit here

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1...0/IMG_4162.JPG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jprzybyla

All of the images I see in this thread are wonderful renderings of the scene according to personal interpetations, but I notice that no one seems to straightening the bridge in the crops...wonders why.

---

Because then the perspective would be off. The bridge is closer to the camera on the left and further away on the right as it crosses the Thames. There is a vanishing point way off the image to the right side.

When I was still in the Netherlands and that was before June 1981, my lady and I went for 11 years between Christmas and New year to London to do shopping. I know nothing about how to work with PS, but I have never seen the London bridge as clear as these pictures.
The thames and London bridge were always very foggy and surrounded by low hanging clouds. And I prefer to remember that foggy bridge instead of all the clear pictures you are showing. It does not look real to me.
If you are that good working with PS show me a "Foggy London Bridge"

Late to thread :o Just one more ...

http://i48.tinypic.com/2ql93dj.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Momo

Because then the perspective would be off. The bridge is closer to the camera on the left and further away on the right as it crosses the Thames. There is a vanishing point way off the image to the right side.

---

That may be the case, but one way to tell for sure is to align the vertical edge of the bridge wall such that it is perfectly vertical (use ruler tool or whatever). I have done that in my rendering on page 1. This technique only works if the camera is pointed towards the horizon.