The streets of India

[AcadieLibre]

I like the photos, Teagan what did you to make it look so washed out, lacks any definition or depth. Now if you did not to do the touch up to the second one my apologies.

[tegan]

I like the photos, Teagan what did you to make it look so washed out, lacks any definition or depth. Now if you did not to do the touch up to the second one my apologies.

They are not at all washed out and have better detail than the originals. My monitor matches perfectly with the results I get from a commercial pro printing firm, so I have no reason whatsoever to doubt what I am seeing.
Of course the Nikon version of srgb workspace was sufficiently different from the standard, that I got a prompt to convert. If you are using MAC there may also be some difference.

Tegan

[tirediron]

Hmm, well, based on that, I'm pretty sure it's a monitor or eyeball issue. Both of your edits show here as rather muddy, uncontrasty images, esp. the mono conversion. I'll have to get some sent off to print and see what the hardcopy looks like and go from there. I know my monitor is out of cal which may be contributing. Thanks for the effort.

[kiley9806]

they seem foggy to me... especially the mono conv. and the 2nd one has strange eyes.
although the brightened faces show MORE detail than the darker, i prefer the darker images as they seem to still have CLEANER detail than the edits.

[tegan]

they seem foggy to me... especially the mono conv. and the 2nd one has strange eyes.
although the brightened faces show MORE detail than the darker, i prefer the darker images as they seem to still have CLEANER detail than the edits.

Well, I certainly did not add any fog. As to the 2nd the "strange eyes" were obscured by the dark area in that part of the original.

Underexposure increases contrast which only gives the appearance of prominent detail in the less underexposed areas. It is NOT present as clean detail or it would come through in the brightening of the dark areas.

Tegan