At 03:33 PM 5/14/2005, Moose wrote:
>Chris Barker wrote:
>
> >I agree, but what has caused the outlines around some of the flowers?
> >
> >
>Looks like the result of sharpening. The twigs in the lovely "Thoughts
>of Summer" TOPE photo also show sharpening artifacts, little halos of
>lighter background beside/around each little twig and the right and
>upper sides of the branches and the bench back.
Yes . . . it is the effect of sharpening . . . and will likely have me
working with the scans to adjust it again!
>As one who is always trying to walk the line between nice and sharp and
>oversharpened, an all too often overdoes it, I recognize the signs.
>Frustrating how what seems just right in PS can look overdone on the web page.
It's frustrating trying to get sharpness back after downsizing an image . .
. which softens it . . . and have changed strategies for tweaking it over
time. Currently I try to find some region of sky with an expanse of very
little change in tonal value and watch for artifact generation as
sharpening parameters are increased or decreased. Some of my older images
are oversharpened. It's also interesting how different the sharpening can
look on different monitors . . . especially between an analog CRT and LCD
panel. I don't have PS; I use PictureWindow which has most of the features
of PS, but they are controlled in a different manner.
>In a possibly related note, I have recently changed the background on my
>web pages from dark blue or dark neutral gray to black, having found black
>to look good to me on other's sites. Now I notice that an image that looks
>good "in black" can look a little washed out against the lighter, tannish
>background of the TOPE site. Not a complaint, just an observation. I just
>very slightly darken images for TOPE.
When making a large print with gallery or salon presentation, I consider
the mat color. Depends on how it will be used and to whom it might be
submitted . . . some galleries and salons require white mat of minimum
width for all work submitted to a juried show (any other color or less than
minimum width results in summary rejection). If color isn't specified, I
consider matte black, matte white or a muted tartan green. The color
depends on the photograph, and it does affect its visual impact. I don't
try to match some prominent color in the photograph . . . it's impossible
to get an exact match and it can distract from other important elements in
the photograph. The purpose is providing separation of photograph from
surroundings (e.g. wall) and to allow the print to come forward to the eye
from the surrounding mat. If viewer's of the work don't remember the mat
color or style and color of the frame (for gallery presentation), but do
remember the photograph, the presentation is working as it should. It
cannot give a photograph visual impact, but it can destroy it in one that
otherwise would. The "traditional" mat color for photographs is a matte
white . . . but that doesn't work as well as black with some
photographs. I use the muted green much less . . . usually with
photographs like the flower macros that have a green background well out of
focus. Gallery walls are typically an off-white although I've seen
something similar to the TOPE page color used.
Background page color surrounding web images similarly affects how a
photograph visually moves forward out of the page to the viewer's eye
although the color(s) that work effectively may be different from what one
would select for matting a print.
-- John Lind
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|