Well the new version is certainly a significant improvement over the old one.
But, I've gotta ask -- how 'good' is the original slide/neg?
It looks to me like a shot with internal lens flare that reduced the
overall contrast of the image, leaving it with a veiled appearance
that no amount of post processing can really remedy.
Of course I wouldn't personally know about this and am speaking purely
hypothetically. :-J
ScottGee1
On 8/11/06, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I take it upon myself sometimes to offer advice on how other's posted
> images could be improved.
>
> And I've taken a bit from others that has pushed me to improve mine. And
> am open, gulp, to more.
>
> Now I'm working on rescanning and processing pics of Yosemite from 2002.
> These were some of the first images I scanned and messed with after
> getting my first scanner.
>
> Some of them hold up very well. Some others... well. phew! Here's one
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Yosemite/020501_00.htm>.
>
> There are still things, one part in particular, that I'd like to
> improve. I could crop it out, but I'm not giving up yet. Still, I like
> to think practice, and better hardware and software, but mostly
> practice, have made a substantial improvement.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|