<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Kuala Terengganu beach &#038; &#8220;island&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.basilgohar.com/blog/2008/08/20/kuala-terengganu-beach-island/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.basilgohar.com/blog/2008/08/20/kuala-terengganu-beach-island</link>
	<description>Technology, Development, &#38; Interesting Stuph</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:54:09 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Basil</title>
		<link>http://www.basilgohar.com/blog/2008/08/20/kuala-terengganu-beach-island/comment-page-1#comment-9236</link>
		<dc:creator>Basil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:09:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.basilgohar.com/blog/?p=216#comment-9236</guid>
		<description>Maa shaaʾ Allaah!  I see what you mean.  I haven't given a lot of time to modifying my pictures after taking them for the most part, yet, but with the results you've demonstrated, I think I need to start.  Have you read-up on any techniques for doing so?  Or maybe you've just gone by trial-and-error?

One of my reasons for hesitating is that I want to ensure that my pictures are true-to-life as opposed to "artistic".  However, the pictures above are definitely more realistic had I left the exposure at one level.  If I took it over again, I would be more mindful of such things, in shaaʾ Allaah.  CHDK makes this easier to do with my PowerShot, but a D-SLR would make it a piece of cake, in shaaʾ Allaah.

Jazaak Allaahu khayran for the tips!  Please do keep them coming.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maa shaaʾ Allaah!  I see what you mean.  I haven&#8217;t given a lot of time to modifying my pictures after taking them for the most part, yet, but with the results you&#8217;ve demonstrated, I think I need to start.  Have you read-up on any techniques for doing so?  Or maybe you&#8217;ve just gone by trial-and-error?</p>
<p>One of my reasons for hesitating is that I want to ensure that my pictures are true-to-life as opposed to &#8220;artistic&#8221;.  However, the pictures above are definitely more realistic had I left the exposure at one level.  If I took it over again, I would be more mindful of such things, in shaaʾ Allaah.  CHDK makes this easier to do with my PowerShot, but a D-SLR would make it a piece of cake, in shaaʾ Allaah.</p>
<p>Jazaak Allaahu khayran for the tips!  Please do keep them coming.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AlBaraa</title>
		<link>http://www.basilgohar.com/blog/2008/08/20/kuala-terengganu-beach-island/comment-page-1#comment-9234</link>
		<dc:creator>AlBaraa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:44:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.basilgohar.com/blog/?p=216#comment-9234</guid>
		<description>I would recommend shooting on a set exposure level. This way your sky comes out one color and then you can process the sky and ground separately. This way you can have a ground and sky that stand out amazingly.

I'll give you some examples:

Here the waterfall, and the trees. I did them seperately and was able to bring about adequate lighting and contrast levels on both. http://picasaweb.google.com/scatteredflame/RamapoHiking?authkey=1j9L4ivZRjY#5241944097736752642

Again, the ground and sky are two separate layers processed individually giving it more life. http://picasaweb.google.com/scatteredflame/RamapoHiking?authkey=1j9L4ivZRjY#5241940953990321426

This was great. The originally was very bright but after some cleanup:
http://picasaweb.google.com/scatteredflame/Travels#5254079396211678850</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would recommend shooting on a set exposure level. This way your sky comes out one color and then you can process the sky and ground separately. This way you can have a ground and sky that stand out amazingly.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll give you some examples:</p>
<p>Here the waterfall, and the trees. I did them seperately and was able to bring about adequate lighting and contrast levels on both. <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/scatteredflame/RamapoHiking?authkey=1j9L4ivZRjY#5241944097736752642" rel="nofollow">http://picasaweb.google.com/scatteredflame/RamapoHiking?authkey=1j9L4ivZRjY#5241944097736752642</a></p>
<p>Again, the ground and sky are two separate layers processed individually giving it more life. <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/scatteredflame/RamapoHiking?authkey=1j9L4ivZRjY#5241940953990321426" rel="nofollow">http://picasaweb.google.com/scatteredflame/RamapoHiking?authkey=1j9L4ivZRjY#5241940953990321426</a></p>
<p>This was great. The originally was very bright but after some cleanup:<br />
<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/scatteredflame/Travels#5254079396211678850" rel="nofollow">http://picasaweb.google.com/scatteredflame/Travels#5254079396211678850</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
