- #NEAT IMAGE VIEWER NOT WORKING INSTALL#
- #NEAT IMAGE VIEWER NOT WORKING SKIN#
- #NEAT IMAGE VIEWER NOT WORKING PRO#
- #NEAT IMAGE VIEWER NOT WORKING WINDOWS 8.1#
- #NEAT IMAGE VIEWER NOT WORKING PC#
The classic Windows Photo Viewer, although it has not been dropped from Windows 10, it doesn’t appear in Default Programs or Default apps page of the Settings app when you perform a clean install of Windows 10 from ISO, after upgrading from a previous version of Windows. But some users are reporting that Windows Photo Viewer has gone missing after clean installing or reinstalling Windows 10.Īs you likely know, in Windows 10, Microsoft has set metro, modern, or universal apps as default for most file types from music to pictures.
#NEAT IMAGE VIEWER NOT WORKING WINDOWS 8.1#
Those of you who have upgraded from Windows 7 or Windows 8.1 to Windows 10 probably have the Windows Photo Viewer program in Windows 10.
#NEAT IMAGE VIEWER NOT WORKING PC#
$50.RECOMMENDED: Download PC Repair tool to quickly find and fix Windows errors automatically What I mean is if this images is a “must have” then you might end up spending 3 hours on it to get it to near to perfect as possible: those three hours would have been avoided if the image were made at the correct exposure in the first instance and to make the image at the correct exposure you need the necessary tools – my point being for the cost a fast Prime Lens you can save maybe 3 hours work in PP (on one image) which must be charged out at ?. I think that you should consider how valuable this image is to you - and to the worth of your Client – and if you are a pro, then you should charge your editing time back to yourself as a cost. These corrections took me about 4 minutes in total – if this image is a “must have” then I expect that I would need to work on it for about an hour maybe 90 minutes to get eh B&G as near to perfect as possible and then I would assess whether to use a noise reduction program for the noise in the background area.
#NEAT IMAGE VIEWER NOT WORKING SKIN#
Here is a close up of the faces after only the initial work on the reconstruction and de-noise on the skin and the dodging and burning of the facial features:
Here is a close up of the faces from the original: The tools used in Photoshop were – Shadow/Highlight – several passes at 1% highlights to extend DR Shadow/Highlight - Mid tone contrast several passes Clone – reconstruct facial skin as necessary Dodge and Burn – redo the light and shadow on faces Contrast – general Brightness – general Colour balance – correct Hue Saturation – enrich – mainly red Levels – general and reset grey point Here is an A/B and a ROUGH INDICATIVE of only the first few steps of the correction process that I would employ – this represents basic corrections of: > the underexposure > the lack of dynamic range > the lack of mid tone contrast > (some of) the noise in the faces The original is on the top. You might or might not have have captured in ‘raw’ – if you did capture in ‘raw’ then that’s good – if not then plan to do so in the future. So if you are receiving payment for this type of work, then I suggest that you get your kit sorted. At least a F/2.8 zoom, but best practice demands that we carry a very fast Prime around F/1.4~1.8.
#NEAT IMAGE VIEWER NOT WORKING PRO#
Looking forward and to avoid the same issue in the future: it is an error for any pro wedding photographer to not have available and use a faster lens in that shooting scenario. I concur that “Focus Magic” is a very good tool - I have rescued a few images using it: FM would work well on this image, but it takes some learning to perfect it. if the Viewer’s eye is interested in the main content and emotion, then the viewer’s eye will largely ignore all the peripheral “junk” like noise or a little bit of blur.
Once that is done then I would consider cloning out the Bridesmaid (camera left) and the floor fan (camera left background) and then I would consider addressing the noise in the dress/suit and maybe in the background also.īut the overwhelming rationale that I would use, would be to make the B&G “pop”. I would seek to make the faces and the B&G “pop” out of the image. And that is where I would begin: firstly with addressing the exposure and then addressing the lack of contrasts and then address the noise (in the skin on the faces). The most important ELEMENTS in the image are the B&G – and the most important parts of those two elements are the FACES. These technical features are evidenced by the HISTOGRAM here: Here is the Histogram of the image after the DR has been extended and the under-exposure somewhat corrected: To the viewer’s eye those technical traits usually make an image “lifeless” “lacking-punch” “lacking vitality” etc. On my Studio Monitor, the image appears to be about 2 Stops underexposed (perhaps a tad more) and it also lacks dynamic range and mid-tone contrast. If this is a “must have” shot, then I would not attack the noise initially, but rather I would strive to make the image more viewer enticing and interesting.
0 kommentar(er)
