Hell, it took me five minutes to find out where it was. That ain't no big deal.
PWP fixes that in an instant. Anyway, it's no more a problem or distraction
than if there were a new freckle on Heidi Klum's butt.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> C.H.Ling wrote:
> > To me, the result is totally unacceptable, the thickness of "gap" is
> > irregular.
> Easy there, pardner. If you want perfection, you need another lens or to
> do some pixel level work. In the context of even a very large print, any
> person who had never seen the CA would never see anything wrong. It just
> looks like the chrome piece isn't evenly in the body aperture on a cab.
> Cabs in HK are all undamaged? The shadow and bright reflection on the
> chrome piece suggest it may actually have been pulled out and slightly
> bent, making a thicker shadow where it has pulled slightly away from the
> body quite natural. Who can tell? There is also a subtle increase in the
> shadows within the Toyota logo that I don't think even a gallery goer -
> without the original for comparison - would ever notice.
>
> In the context of an art print, I would do something more careful and
> detailed. In this one, I was just trying something that would handle the
> CA in a way that made it a non-issue in the context of the subject
> without any detail work.
>
> > There is no different in term of overall quality,
> A matter of opinion, and it's your image, so you win by definition.
> Nevertheless, to my taste, something that looks like shadow is, while
> not perfect, better that an obviously wrong color.
>
> > I would just save the time of such manual touch up.
> This wasn't manual, I never touched a brush, clone, eraser or other
> detail tool. If I had, you may be sure the shadow would have been of
> even width.
>
> > This is just an example, I think the
> > most popular problem people seen is color fringe on the leaves with white
> > sky as background just like the Canon 24-120 IS L photo in dpreview.
> I agree that that is where it is most often an obvious problem, but
> that's not what you presented. I'm pretty pragmatic, and suit my work to
> the specific problem and context at hand. The context here is a very
> small part of a very complex image.
>
> > How long you think it will take to correct such photo?
> Not much longer than your sample, the way I did it. How it would look is
> something, on the other hand, I don't know without trying. Probably not
> very good.
>
> > I perfer to get a lens like the DZ7-14 which is free from this problem.
> >
> I certainly agree!
>
> Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|