GeeBee wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Chuck is right about the shadow detail being there. I 'Moosed' your shot to
> bring out some shadow detail but I liked the shot from the start and I'm not
> sure that the extra detail adds anything for me as I was taken by the great
> brickwork lead in. Wait for the page to load fully then put your mouse on
> the pic:
> http://www.geebeephoto.com/2006/Temp.htm
>
Hey, cool! Somebody finally used my roll-over idea. I think it's the
best way to see differences.
I agree that it could use something to pick up some detail. Just pulling
up the shadows though, does what I usually run into; it leaves
everything flat looking, with too little overall and local contrast.
I went further, fiddling with several things
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/MWong/IMG1585.htm>.
I started much where you did, bringing up the shadow detail. Then I did
some LCE and curves, which I think nicely brought up the shops and
bricks. As usual, the sky has to be selected into a separate layer to
cover the halo effects of unsharp mask.
I also thought it would be good to separate the castle from the hill
behind it. In the original, the iconic part of the image is nothing. The
LCE and curves brought out some detail and added some pop to the castle.
Then I separately selected the hill and gave it more texture/definition.
I also couldn't resist adding a little blue to the sky and taking out
the flare light/reflection. Disneyland doesn't look right without blue
sky. :-)
There is still a lot left in the shadows. I think that looks right with
such a brightly lit scene.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|