# Pigeons Warming Up



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

Chicago is at times known, unfortunately, for its brazen pigeon population. They'll come close enough to kick, and only budge if they think they will be kicked. I was at a plaza when I saw a bunch of them all surrounding an "eternal flame" that is lit at the plaza, and I just thought it was funny. Buncha bums. 

The camera was only a day old and I totally flaked out and left the white balance on Tungsten!!  Stooopid! LOL...so I took out as much blue as I could in Photoshop. Perhaps it would be better in B/W, but I love the brilliant orange flame. OTE if you think you can help!


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

Drrr~ Photobucket made it totally tiny! Sorry :meh: Anyway, I've uploaded another one, I tried a different way of fixing it. I like it better!






Instead of merely pulling out blues selectively, I went into those blues and bumped up their yellows. (In the adjust selective color option, I chose Blues and then beefed up the yellow scale).


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

Linky no worky, me like to see photo.  me like pigeons


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

RickyN29 said:
			
		

> Linky no worky, me like to see photo.  me like pigeons



Seriously?  It's showing up for me...can others not see the pigeons either?


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

Yep, I even checked the source code and the link is formated properly, but there is not image on the server that matches the request. Try re-uploading to photobucket, or send it to info@fallen-tree.com and I will host it for you in whatever size you like.

-Ricky Ricardo

P.S.  It is probably showing up for you because it is already in your browser cache.  Try hitting F5 or refresh and I bet it will not show up


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

I just revisited my host, and they're there, and showing up after refresh....:???: Sorry, I want to hear if more people cannot see them too. If all else fails I have my own FTP site I can stick them into.


----------



## Peanuts (Jan 8, 2006)

Not working here.


----------



## Dave_D (Jan 8, 2006)

PachelbelsCanon350D said:
			
		

> Drrr~ Photobucket made it totally tiny! Sorry :meh: Anyway, I've uploaded another one, I tried a different way of fixing it. I like it better!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I put my loupe up to the monitor and saw it. It's a little tiny red, blue and green dot. Nice work!:lmao:


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

Dave_D said:
			
		

> I put my loupe up to the monitor and saw it. It's a little tiny red, blue and green dot. Nice work!:lmao:



Grrr! Why can I see them??

*whispers: "I see DEAD PEOPLE!"*

Heh. Ok, here. I put them on my FTP. 

Before I fixed my Tungsten nightmare mistake:





And after:


----------



## Peanuts (Jan 8, 2006)

Looks like the same red X to me :S


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

Peanuts said:
			
		

> Looks like the same red X to me :S



Whaaaat? I have NEVER had a problem posting photos! I don't know what's going on! *headdesk* Um...I will try direct copy/pasting the links...


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

Ok, um....click this?
http://www.annikashultz.com/pigeons_getting_warm_small.jpg

and then this?
http://www.annikashultz.com/pigeons_getting_warm_fixed.jpg


----------



## Verbal (Jan 8, 2006)

"The image &#8220;http://www.annikashultz.com/pigeons_getting_warm_fixed.jpg&#8221; cannot be displayed, because it contains errors."


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

Still not working.  And now you hurt my feelings that you didn't believe me.


----------



## Dave_D (Jan 8, 2006)

<img>The image http://www.annikashultz.com/pigeons_getting_warm_small.jpg cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.
<img>The image http://www.annikashultz.com/pigeons_getting_warm_fixed.jpg cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.
This is what I get.


----------



## Dave_D (Jan 8, 2006)

SHWOOSH cutting throught the air as she picks up the hammer.


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

OH I KNOW I KNOW! My filenames are too long! :lmao: 

*desperate* can you see them???


----------



## Peanuts (Jan 8, 2006)

Nope *shakes head*


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

PachelbelsCanon350D said:
			
		

> OH I KNOW I KNOW! My filenames are too long! :lmao:
> 
> *desperate* can you see them???


 

Nope


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

I give up.  Seriously. I have never had this happen before.


----------



## Dave_D (Jan 8, 2006)

Pretty impressive thread though. 20 replies and not a single picture. maybe try pulling them out of the pbucket site, rename and try again. use ctrl+c to copy and ctrl+v to paste from the pbucket site onto the thread.


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

Haha, I couldn't resist!


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

PachelbelsCanon350D said:
			
		

> I give up.  Seriously. I have never had this happen before.



Aaaaand now I just accidentally emptied (deleted) everything on my FTP site. So I have to go find them and put them back. Who knows where they are. I officially hate pigeons now. :meh:


----------



## Peanuts (Jan 8, 2006)

Since I have convinced you to make it this far.. may I suggest flickr.com ?


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

Or like I said, I am more than happy to host for you.  Just shoot them over.  :hugs:


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

My computer is the devil! I emailed them to Ricky. If they exist at all and I am not IMAGINING I took a photo of some pigeons, then they may very well show up in this thread.

If they do not...


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

Hehe, they were a figment of your imagination!

Muahwawawaw

Okay, here we go,

IMAGES COPYRIGHT PachelbelsCanon350D


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

And it was worth it!  I really like the photo!

Btw, do you have a higher res copy?  Cause the ones you sent me were very large in file size, but very small and low quality.  Not to mention, the images were corrupted, so I had to redo it.

If you have the originals, send them over, I will scale them down and repost, it will look a lot better.


----------



## Dave_D (Jan 8, 2006)

They are both pretty cool. I like the blue effect. It gives the image a nice hue.


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

I could be wrong, but it looks like it was a WB error that was corrected in post.


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

Hokay! Just sent Ricky another photo. That's WEEEEIRD that they look so nasty like that. Like I scanned them with a...I don't know what.

I started over. Took the original, brought it into PS, scaled it down, saved it.  We shall see! 

All this for stupid pigeons!!! *mutters*


----------



## Joerocket (Jan 8, 2006)

I wanna see some pigeons dammit! thought it must be an amazing pic cuz it had so many replies, was pretty funny to see how many tries it took tho, i feel bad for you... you get a thimbs up for the effort. good luck with the picture thing. maybe its just cuz its pigeons. did you try taking a picture of some other kinds of birds. ok now im just being mean. heres my interpretation of what i think the pic will look like...







that was a little too fun. hope that helps till we get to see the real pic!

-Joe


----------



## Joerocket (Jan 8, 2006)

dammit that didnt workout took me too long to draw it. lol, oh well now you all get to see my artistic capabilities in Paint. i really like that pic though, i think i prefer the b%w with color fire.. nice work!


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

PachelbelsCanon350D said:
			
		

> Hokay! Just sent Ricky another photo. That's WEEEEIRD that they look so nasty like that. Like I scanned them with a...I don't know what.
> 
> I started over. Took the original, brought it into PS, scaled it down, saved it. We shall see!
> 
> All this for stupid pigeons!!! *mutters*


 
I got the new one, but it looks the same.  Scan it at like 150dpi, and send the file it creates to my email.  I am guessing a 1-2MB or so should be right.  Then ill work from there.


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

**VERY TIMIDLY attempts yet again to post her stupid pigeons....then tiptoes away**


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

Joerocket said:
			
		

> . i really like that pic though, i think i prefer the b%w with color fire.. nice work!


 
Again, I could be wrong, but I do not think it is selective coloring (Black and White with color fire) I think it was simply color balanced wrong in the first image.  Looks like Tungsten balanced film shot outdoors.


----------



## Peanuts (Jan 8, 2006)

It shows! It shows! and for all that.. I love this picture


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

PachelbelsCanon350D said:
			
		

> **VERY TIMIDLY attempts yet again to post her stupid pigeons....then tiptoes away**


 
Bravo! Bravo!  Although it is still really small.


----------



## Joerocket (Jan 8, 2006)

RickyN29 said:
			
		

> Again, I could be wrong, but I do not think it is selective coloring (Black and White with color fire) I think it was simply color balanced wrong in the first image. Looks like Tungsten balanced film shot outdoors.


 
oh my bad, yea after looking closer i see some color in the pennies. and its not exactly black either.


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

RickyN29 said:
			
		

> Again, I could be wrong, but I do not think it is selective coloring (Black and White with color fire) I think it was simply color balanced wrong in the first image.  Looks like Tungsten balanced film shot outdoors.



Bingo! Only I do not use film. I stated up in my original post (35 posts ago? Hahahaha!) that I did indeed use a Tungsten setting while outdoors because I am a complete flake and I had only gotten the camera a day ago. So I photoshopped it to pull some blue out. 

I am SO SORRY for the havoc of this ugly ugly thread! I am not an idiot, I swear! I'm a web designer and I upload stuff all the time! :lmao: 

But hey, even a broken watch is right twice a day, no?


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

BTW, I really love the pic as well, hence why I think you should share with us a nice big, good quality one!


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

ok. Here goes. I'm TRYING. haha...trying to FTP it to my own site again. 

Note....if it does in fact show up, this is the PRE-processed one. All bluey and tungsten-oopsy. 






P.S. Ricky...I was too baffled at the time to laugh but your post with all the red X's is really funny :lmao:


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

Something is really causing it to soften up when you resize.

I corrected the color and resized.  I totally love it!  With your permission, could I use it as my desktop wallpaper for a bit?

Here we go:


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

And even larger, yet still only 500k

www.fallen-tree.com/tpf/pigeonlarge.jpg
(right click, save as)


Haha, I just realized we have been going back and forth for 3 hours!


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

P.S.  What aperture did you shoot this at?  I notice the left corner is blurry, but not so much the right corner...


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

PachelbelsCanon350D said:
			
		

> P.S. Ricky...I was too baffled at the time to laugh but your post with all the red X's is really funny :lmao:


 
Haha, yeah, I have a collection of "Funny Forum Pics" that I just the opportunity to share!


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

Thanks a lot, Ricky...You fixed the color great. What did YOU do to pull that blue out? Did you do selective color adjustments on the blues like I did?

Also, let me tell you how I resize, perhaps there is something blatantly wrong with the method!! My camera shoots images like four feet wide at 72ppi. So, in Photoshop, I reduce them to 8 inches wide (or so) leaving them at 72ppi. Then, I save. Why is that making them soft?  When I uploaded my 500k one, it looked good to me. What am I doing wrong, that makes other people see mediocre images when I see sharp ones? I resize and resave images for web all the time with no problems. I wonder why these pigeons are trying to annoy me. LOL.

Thanks for all your compliments everyone, too...I'm actually quite flattered that you like my silly photo and were able to hang in there through all 40-some posts to see it. :lmao: Ricky, feel free to use it as your wallpaper, I'd be honored.


----------



## JonMikal (Jan 8, 2006)

love your image Pachelbel


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

Hum, well I am not sure how much my info will help since I use a slightly different setup. I use MS Digital Image Pro 10. 

To correct the color, I first adjusted "Color Temperature" (Put source as ~5300k, Image as ~3300K) and then yes, I used the color levels to remove the remaining blue from the image.

As for the size, normally I would just maintain the dpi and lower the pixel dimensions. I found a really super simple easy to use tool that works wonders. If you use Windows XP, it is called Image Resizer by MS. It is 100% free. You simply right click on the image, and choose "Resize Image", click what screen size you want it to fit on, and it does the rest, super simple. I HIGHLY recommend this free tool.

You can get it at http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

Look at the column on the right, scroll down to "Image Resizer" Again, I highly recommend this utility for its ease of use and exceptional quality.


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

RickyN29 said:
			
		

> P.S.  What aperture did you shoot this at?  I notice the left corner is blurry, but not so much the right corner...



I shot it at 5.6. Hahahaha!! Like I said...be gentle on me....camera was just out of the package. 

When I went to the city that day, I just set the thing on Av and shot away. I'm shooting all in manual now (it's been a week) and oh my GOSH, manual is so much better!! I can control my own destiny, who woulda thunk. 

I have a Canon Zoom lens, the total cheapie, 28-80mm, f3.5/5.6 II. I believe I shot these pigeons in telephoto, so that softens the focus of the lens. I can't believe how much I've learned this week; if I went back and shot those pigeons again it would be a completely different photograph.


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

PachelbelsCanon350D said:
			
		

> I shot it at 5.6. Hahahaha!! Like I said...be gentle on me....camera was just out of the package.
> 
> When I went to the city that day, I just set the thing on Av and shot away. I'm shooting all in manual now (it's been a week) and oh my GOSH, manual is so much better!! I can control my own destiny, who woulda thunk.
> 
> I have a Canon Zoom lens, the total cheapie, 28-80mm, f3.5/5.6 II. I believe I shot these pigeons in telephoto, so that softens the focus of the lens. I can't believe how much I've learned this week; if I went back and shot those pigeons again it would be a completely different photograph.


 
I think it came out great. And I tend to use Priority (Shutter or Aperture, simply to save time) I think 5.6 was about right. It looks like it was a low light situation, so anything smaller (larger f/) would have made camera shake an issue. Anything larger (smaller f/) would have cut the depth of field too small. So I think for the situation, you did absolutely perfect. Oh, what ISO?  And what camera?  Film I am assuming, and if so, what is tungsten balanced film?


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

I'm on a Mac, so I can't get that little resizer utility. That's ok though.

The thing that's baffling me is that I've been a graphic designer for four years and only now am I running into a glitch! I've resized photos for the web so many times, and I resize them for print also, where they have to be 300 dpi or more.  

So...I think the best think I can do tonight is shut down the computer...go downstairs....shoot some orange object for this week's TPF photo assignment...and go to sleep. I'll resize and upload them starting fresh tomorrow. 

Thanks so much for all your help. I'm reeeeally not one of _les incompetents,_ i promise.


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

RickyN29 said:
			
		

> I think it came out great. And I tend to use Priority (Shutter or Aperture, simply to save time) I think 5.6 was about right. It looks like it was a low light situation, so anything smaller (larger f/) would have made camera shake an issue. Anything larger (smaller f/) would have cut the depth of field too small. So I think for the situation, you did absolutely perfect. Oh, what ISO?  And what camera?  Film I am assuming, and if so, what is tungsten balanced film?



ISO 200, and not film at all. Canon 350D (Rebel XT). I'm surprised to hear that f/5.6 was a good choice...looking back, it seems like a large aperture for broad daylight...but it was overcast and the pigeons and concrete were all dark, so maybe not so bad after all. I find often that when I shoot in aperture priority in low light, the camera tries too hard to create a sunny bright exposure and blows out all my highlights. I'm having much better luck in manual.


----------



## RickyN29 (Jan 8, 2006)

Wow I am dumb.  I only read your username, Pachelbels*Canon350D*, like a million times and still it did not register in my mind!  I guess what confused me was I could have sworn I saw you say somewhere that you were scanning the picture. So I was thinking either a print or a negative, so film.

That is strange about it blowing out highlights in Av. The 350d is my primary and I have not encountered that.  By any chance is the exposure compensation up a few stops?  I tend to shoot primarily in Av unless I am working in low light where I try to use Tv so as to minimize camera shake, never any problems.


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 8, 2006)

The situation with the blown out highlights was trying to shoot a coral reef tank at the aquarium. I shot in aperture priority, and the light bouncing off the corals and the brighter fish is way too much. But that is a really tricky situation to shoot in! I have a lot of trouble shooting fishtanks successfully. I'd like to have another crack at it in manual, if admission to the aquarium weren't 26 buckaroos.


----------



## Onyx (Jan 22, 2006)




----------

