Well, I'm not gunshy. I'm intensely curious now. I don't see the
puported color banding at all. But since two of you do there's got to
be something wrong with my eyes or my monitor or I just don't know what
I'm supposed to be looking for.
There are some cloning artifacts which are the product of working
quickly and using PS's @%$@^$ cloning tool (instead of PW Pro's).
They're visible as (mostly) vertical darker gray streaks a short
distance from Maria on the left side and a small sliver of gray on her
sleeve. The bit on the sleeve is due to PS's clone tool affecting areas
beyond the nominal brush radius, something that PW Pro never does.
But I see absolutely nothing I would call color banding since I don't
see any color at all beyond various shades of light to medium gray.
The newly created background comes from copying a large portion of
what's on the right side, moving it to the left edge of the original
frame, flipping the copied piece about its vertical axis for a better
match on the patterns of light/dark and then blending in the result with
the clone tool.
And thanks for defending my "demo" image. I'll remember that the next
time I'm inclined to comment outside the demo range of one of yours
again. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
Over-the-top saturation critic
Moose wrote:
> Brian Swale wrote:
>
>>Chuck wrote
>>
>>
>>>Yes, I was going to suggest a crop too. I don't think there's anything
>>>at all wrong with all the extra background but, given the angle of her
>>>body, I think the extra background area should be to her left instead of
>>>her right as shown here: http://www.chucknorcutt.com/temp/maria_recomp.jpg
>>>As long as I was adding space on the left I also changed the aspect
>>>
>>
>>Does anybody else see severe colour banding in the background, or only me?
>>
>
> I saw it. I wouldn't call it severe, but certainly nothing I would want
> in a finished product.
>
> I also saw the image as a demo of an alternative composition, not a
> finished product. Doing that kind of thing at all well is time consuming
> and doing it perfectly even more so. And working with a smallish JPEG
> makes it harder.
>
> I've been known to post examples of techniques and alternate versions of
> images. So I know it's frustrating when posting an example to be
> questioned on some other aspect. Post on noise, and somebody ignores
> that and starts off on the color balance. And so on... And so, I would
> probably not post what Chuck did, because I'm gunshy. I'd either put
> more time into an aspect that has nothing to do with the point being
> made - or just skip it.
>
> I saw Chuck's post as what it said it was, a comment on composition. As
> such, I find it interesting and informative. I too prefer the negative
> space on the left, although I would simply do a tighter crop fopr
> myself. That's what makes horse races.
>
> I also know that Chuck is interested in portrait lighting, and find what
> he did with light and shadow in the new area interesting. Rather than
> just making the background flatish, he has put in light and shadow from
> another light source that would be out of the frame in the original.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
