Photo: No Wheeled Boxes

No Wheeled Boxes
This was a sign at Wal-Mart that apparently means “no trucks,” but I thought it looked funny. The truck on the picture looks more like a box with four wheels. So I’ve decided to title this “No Wheeled Boxes.”

This photo is from 2005, but the source image is dull and ugly. Using the curves tool, I added a lot of contrast, making the sky a bright blue and the colors white, black, and red on the sign very vivid. Then, I selectively desaturated the blue in the sky to prevent color banding when I make prints of this photo. The red will look fine, but blue is a particularly vulnerable color for some reason.

I don’t talk much about this, but it costs me $115 per month to keep this blog and my other sites online. If you could make a donation or make your Amazon.com purchases through my Amazon affiliate link, I will be very appreciative.

Fujifilm FinePix A360, 1/286, F4.7, 5.8mm, ISO64, 2005-11-21T09:17:57-05, 2005-11-21_09h17m57

Download the high-res JPEG or download the source image.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Credit me as Richard X. Thripp and link here.

8 thoughts on “Photo: No Wheeled Boxes

  1. To be honest. This time I think the original picture looked a little better. You lost a lot of details on the right part of the picture. And same time the light feels a little strong.

    1. Editing always destroys detail… there’s no way to create more detail, unless you add elements of another image. Of course you can bring out details in the shadows or highlights that would normally be unseen, but usually only with RAW images.

      However, you have to ask if the details you are destroying matter. In this case, I don’t care about over-exposing a few clouds. I wanted to make the sign stand out. Also, I wanted to make an image I could print later, so I changed the sky from blue to blue-cyan, a color that is easier for most prints to reproduce.

      1. I suppose it all depends what you intend to use the picture for, didn’t think about that.

        But I do believe that you can bring out more details even without RAW. Not denying a RAW would probably be the more ideal filetype for it. Never the less, that one is a very interesting thing to do on the other hand.

        1. Well, you’re right. There are always details in the shadows that can be brought out. However, in JPEG you probably shouldn’t, because they will be blocky. JPEG compresses images more in areas that won’t normally be seen, such as shadows.

          1. Can’t deny that JPEG doesn’t pick up as much data as RAW does, considering how RAW is 4 times the size normally and will have much greater potential then JPEG. But that you shouldn’t try bring out shadows from a JPEG because of that I can’t totally agree with.

            1. Well, the main reason to bring out the shadows is to fix an underexposed photo. But with JPEG, you get all sorts of artifacts and color banding with any major editing. I usually just give up on those photos, now that I’ve been shooting RAW for over three years.

              1. Well, if I was in your position and had RAW to use, I’d not touch JPEG files. But as it is my camera doesn’t support RAW files.

                But thanks to this conversation I got the idea to check up if it was actually possible to make my camera support RAW files by some kind of software update or something. And to be amazed I found this parameter: “using CHDK firmware”. So that I’ll need to look into!

                1. I still use JPEG on my Canon PowerShot SD790IS, because that’s all it supports. But never on my Canon Rebel XTi digital SLR.

                  I used to use the CHDK firmware on the Canon PowerShot A620. It was amazing, there were even games. You had to download it online, and it was not endorsed by Canon.

Comments are closed.

Writing on education, psychology, and philosophy