Jeff Keller wrote:
> You eliminated quite a few leaves and branches on the trees in
> addition to the mist / haze.
I tried to prevent this kind of comment with my notice "OK, so I lost
some tree detail. It's hard to retain working with such a small image.
Just to give an idea of what can be done"
If working with the full size original - and if it were mine or I was
getting paid, it would be easy enough to avoid the loss of leaves and
branches. It just isn't worth the effort, which would be much greater on
the small JPEG, to do a really clean job when I am trying to illustrate
something else.
The point here was how one may, if one wishes to do so, correct for the
effects of distance, mist, etc.
> The saturated colors of the hills would surely appeal more to most people but
> I prefer the original.
>
As usual when I do this kind of thing, I may go past what most people
would settle on, and hope that viewers can imagine where on the
continuum between the original and the post example they would like it
best. I find this particular original too misty for my taste. If it were
mine and I were setting up for a print, I would probably end up
somewhere in between. When I work, I oftten end up with several layers,
which I usually combine to give two, the untouched original and the
fully adjusted one. Then I can adjust the opacity of the top one to find
the balance I like, which will often change with time. I wish I know how
to give a similar adjustment slider on the web.
Looks a lot like Calif., no?
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|