Martyn Smoothy wrote:
> Moose,
>
> Pleased you found some of the pics interesting enough to warrant your
> attention. Just a couple of points...
>
> Most of the scans were manipulated to some extent in PS to bring out a bit
> more shadow detail,
Your secret was already out, for anybody who does this sort of thing.
There are halos of the sort that result from sharpening and/or
Shadow/Highlight adjustment along the rooflines, etc. of several shots.
Nothing blatant, but I noticed them. In a few cases, I had to clear them
before going on with my own playing, which would make much worse ones,
to be hidden under a sky layer.
> but I think you generally go farther than I usually do with this.
I go further than most folks. You see, I'm not preparing something as a
final product for display, I'm seeing and showing how far I can go
without the image falling apart or going really unnatural. :-) My idea
of a finished product would usually be somewhere between the original
and my play version, sometimes close to one or the other.
> For instance, I feel you've overdone it with #11 - the facade is far brighter
> than it actually looked as I recall.
Winsor has just posted comments that are pretty close to my own ideas.
I'm going to reply separately about this area.
> On the other hand, your version of #47 does bring out more detail.
That one I had to be careful with. Grain/noise started getting pretty
prominent if I went as far as I would have liked. I have the same
trouble with many of my own slides in bright sunlit scenes, the shadow
detail just isn't there. I could have done grain reduction, but it would
only have smoothed out the lack of detail.
In many ways, I like the way #49 turned out. There is so much rich
nuance of tone in the front that was hidden. On the other hand, it does
have a flat, not quite natural quality. Still learning.
> Just a matter of taste I suppose.
>
Oh, indeed! These are mostly my "picture postcard" versions of a place
I've never seen. So they mostly reflect my taste, although I left in a
couple I don't think really worked, as examples of things still to be
considered. I don't think #12 really works, there's something wrong with
the facade of the main subject and #27 is better, but not yet good
enough. Maybe a different take on LCE....
> When it comes to distorted perspective I usually leave well alone - all
> these were shot with the 21mm f3.5 & the "distortion" comes with the
> territory. Sometimes it works
Oh yes, I love #2 for example, and like the tumbling in wall look of #17
and 18.
> & sometimes it doesn't... often I quite like it.
I have a 21/3.5, but have never carried it in such a place, so I had a
lot of fun and learned a lot working with yours. If you had corrected
them all yourself, I wouldn't have had that. Thanks!
> Have to admit to being a bit inconsistent here - I did alter the
> perspective on 2 of the images, #41 & #48, both church facades taken square
> on (you can see the original of #41 here -
> http://archaeoimages.com/tmp/Venice-41-S_Giorgio_Maggiore-orig.jpg).
I wondered about #41, a nice job, almost square, but not over done. I
wondered too about #48, but in a different way. I thought it maght have
been taken from a vantage point high enough to give a "reverse"
perspective effect. It definitely "toes in" at the bottom.
> In both cases I should probably have used a different lens....
>
Eh, they"re both nice shots, what's the problem? :-)
> In any case thanks for the feedback, a fresh "perspective" is always valuable
> :-)
>
And thanks for your response. Communal photography?
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
