Yup, that's right. Strange artifacts before grain.
AG Schnozz wrote:
> Moose,
>
> No biggy. I realized that my post wasn't clear in the intentions of
> what I was trying to show. Also, it became clear to me, when viewing
> the 50/3.5 image on a different computer how cruddy it looked. What
> happened is that I passed the image through Neat-Image and I got
> those strange painterly artifacts which screw things up. But I had
> to otherwise Chuck would have been all over me for the nasty
> grain/noise in the image. ;)
>
> Regardless, both images look decent when presented in their proper
> format.
>
> AG
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food &
> Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
> ============================================== List usage info:
> http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies:
> olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|