Actually, I had a few minutes while I was waiting for something to run - PM sent.

Sure. I'll PM you a download link. It possibly won't be this evening though.

Here's another go:

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Other%20Peoples%20Pics/_IGP9356-1.jpg[/IMG]

I think it would print fine. If you wanted to be kind to gran, I'd be inclined to soften her skin a bit.

Quite an appealing shot, really, with the right hand space cropped away.

Apols, I've only just moved over to a new computer, and I'd forgotten to set 'save for web and devices' to include the Exif.

This is what PhotoMe exports:

Camera: PENTAX K-5
Lens: Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di-II LD (A16)
Software: K-5 Ver 1.03
Focal length: 36.25 mm (equiv. 54 mm)
Aperture: F11
Exposure time: 1/100"
ISO speed rating: 160/23°
Program: Manual
Metering Mode: Pattern
White Balance: Daylight Fluorescent
Focus Mode: AF-S
Image Stabilizer: stabilized
Noise Reduction: Off
Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode

Well it definitely is there in the original.

It's a lot more obvious on my monitor (calibrated with a Huey today, as it happens) from some viewing angles than others. At its worst, it looks like raw flesh.

It's basically in the underexposed shadows.

I've changed the white balance to daylight (higher colour temp, so less red), whacked it up by two stops and added a little fill light in ACR, and then fiddled about a bit with shadows/highlights.

Desaturating the red a little might it less unpleasant in the shadows, as might a 10-15% opacity lightening clone from some of the nicer skin.

How's this?

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Other%20Peoples%20Pics/_IGP9356.jpg[/IMG]

Could probably be improved a bit more with a bit more time.

But you'll really struggle to bring out those eye sockets, and from some monitor angles, the red skin where his hair is touching hers is still pretty noticeable.

You could always convert to black and white

Well said, sir.


Oi - no insulting my dad!!

He's a silver-haired old git, too (late 70s), and not that long ago he was about as nervous as you are with all this new-fangled technology.

After much haranguing from me to try things and not be scared, he got braver and braver, and now he upgrades firmware in his camera for breakfast and then goes on to replace the motherboard in his computer for afternoon tea.

He's had a bit of help from me in the past, but there's a lot of patient help available here too if you but ask.

So, with the greatest of respect, no more of this nonsense about any of it being beyond your limits. The fear is far worse than the reality.

A bit late on this one, but the Morgan codec worked for me.

I've seen this effect too in grossly underexposed areas, also on faces.

I'm guessing, but I suspect that skin tones contain a lot more red and yellow, than blue or green, and when the underexposure is enough, that's pretty much all that's left.

Yes, nice to see that someone's done some sensible research on the topic.

I doubt it'll stop people posting an uncropped image at 800px wide, and claiming it proves their lens is either sharp or soft though.