The class revolves around its "berserker rage" class feature. The Berserker: As is standard depiction for the Barbarian in roleplaying games.Zigzagged by the Urban Barbarian (specialized in fighting with barbarian abilities adapted for use in the city) and Armored Hulk (specializes in wearing armor whilst raging) archetypes.Emphasized by the True Primitive archetype, which represents a barbarian from the most primeval, savage cultures - Stone Age type cultures, indeed.Barbarian Hero: The bog-standard Barbarian is assumed to be one of these, naturally.Berserk Button: The Hateful Rager archetype loses some general access to Rage for the Favored Enemy ability, and abilities allowing the Hateful Rager to rage more easily/effectively by fighting their Favored Enemy.Some archetypes avert this and include magical buffs, though. Badass Normal: No magical powers, but can still compete against all of the mystical monsters and creatures.It emphasizes attack over defense and is better at evading or shrugging off effects, through straightforward hitpoint damage will drop it faster than the Fighter. The barbarian is a non-magical Glass Cannon character, capable of hitting hard and fast, but not as adept at soaking up damage as its cousin, the Fighter. Similar with #4, The reds and greens look too blueish to me.A brutal berserker warrior that uses raw savagery and passion to hew down all that stands in their way, most associated with primal and barbaric lands beyond the reach of civilization. This is a quick edit to my taste based on the JPG (probably the reason for the color distortion at the transisions in the sky): Since the day was overcast the shadow under the tree should not make a big difference (in opposite to a bright day when shadows and sunlight render different colors). #5 The fence is light blue (or light blue-gray), not white (check it with any software). Maybe they look different on your monitor or your taste is different.
I haven't been there so I can only describe my impression viewing on a calibrated monitor. Regarding the color cast I said 'the color temperature is too cool In My Opinion'. #1 has also some overexposed areas, but they are negligible. I know that the scene is difficult, but this doesn't change the fact that the sky is overexposed.
It doesn't help that the pixels are clipped at about 246. #2 was obviously exposed for the shadows, which is ok in general but the sky looks blown out, too. It doesn't help that those pixels are 'only' 251-252 (and not 255). So the the sky is blown out (highlights clipped). Accordingly the histogram shows a peak on the right side which is (almost) clipped at 252. Unfortunately your tool didn't help to fix the clipped skies.īlown out sky in #4. The program did not show those shortcomings.
Skyseeker cast free#
There is no chance to save the highlights based on the JPGs.Īs a side note, I use an excellent free ware editing program (jpgilluminator) that shows me when something is over and/or underexposed. I like to invite you to edit the many photos you claim need to be improved and I look forward to seeing your results with the hope that I may learn something.
Likewise if you choose any other WB setting that does not match the situation you will not get colors that fit reality. I don't know your WB settings, but AWB is not always ideal to reflect reality.
Skyseeker cast software#
Well, your in-camera or RAW processing software already did a lot of color 'enhancing'. I don't believe in "enhancing" colours and prefer to leave it up to nature to show its beautiful robe. I like to ask you to single out the many pictures that are overexposed with blown out skies or too cool temperatures. I truly appreciate the fact that you looked at the photos and made your comments. Maybe some more processing helps to save the sky - even if overcast - and enhance colors? Many pictures look overexposed, some with blown out sky. I'm sorry that I can't share the enthusiasm of this thread.
0 kommentar(er)
