yup^ i know what you meanWhat exactly do you mean, "poor quality"? Other than a slight warming that Rich applied to your photo, the quality appears to be identical to the original, at least on my iPad.
Are you sure you want it "barely changed"?...that's the way i wanted it, barely changed. ...
dont u see the red eyes on your calibrator?Are you sure you want it "barely changed"?
Are you sure you can believe what your monitor is showing you? If it isn't calibrated using a professional external hardware calibrator, what you see is almost certainly not what the rest of us see, and not what you'll get if you have it printed professionally.
For your consideration:
View attachment 62820
Hi Guys - I did base my variation on Sam's (as noted in the file name), but, in addition to what Sam did, I also:Ged, Tom used my image to compare the colors between mine and the original. There was no red eye in my image. Unless you think that he may have altered the color a bit.
I am a girl as you can see pretty well in my photo.Hi Guys - I did base my variation on Sam's (as noted in the file name), but, in addition to what Sam did, I also:
(a) immediately converted the image's "sRGB IEC61966-2-1 black scaled" color space, to the industry standard "sRGB IEC61966-2.1" space to ensure that everyone has the best chance to see the image in the same way, especially folks who might view it on software that isn't fully color managed or on wide-Gamut monitors (such as mine), and to ensure it is handled correctly by forum software. Perhaps this image was downloaded from Facebook? As far as I am aware, they are the only major user of this color space.
(b) attempted to recover some of the visually offensive blown (ie, wildly overexposed) highlights, especially the large central rock visible through the fence and her right forearm;
(c) reduced some of the grayish veiling glare probably caused by a slightly dirty lens and/or an ineffective or missing lens shade. This veiling glare covers almost the entire lower part of the image, but is particularly visible on items such as her pants, the railing, the walkway, etc.. The veiling flare is also visible in some areas higher in the image, eg, on the right side of her hat (ie, viewer's left side);
(d) generally evened out the harsh mid-day lighting;
(e) brightened the girl's face and slightly darkened most everything else to focus attention to her; and,
(f) adjusted the color of the grass (but to a lesser degree than Rich did) to get rid of the unrealistic, nearly unvarying, cold greens in the original and replace them with a more realistic variegated yellow-green.
Unfortunately, somewhere in the course of making the above adjustments, the red-eye effect crept in. Since my intent was to help the OP by illustrating the importance of (and reducing) the above image flaws that occupied vastly larger areas of the image, I never even noticed that the red-eyes.
Since the OP ( @mendeleev ) chose not to make any comment whatsoever on any of the obvious differences (described above and illustrated by my animated GIF), but only tersely / sarcastically commented a handful of pixels around the subject's eyes, I assume he either disagrees with them, or simply doesn't see/understand them. In either case, that's fine.