Marc Lawrence wrote:
> http://www.geebeephoto.com/2007/07252.htm
>
>
>> Moose wrote:
>> I think it's a little over sharpened. I find it really difficult to
>> retain a sense of the detail when downsized for the web in
>> things like foliage without getting a slightly unnatural effect,
>> especially where an area of fine detail meets one without.
>>
>> One thing I've tried is a sharpened layer over an unsharpened
>> one, then working the edges.
>>
>
> Ahh, yes, that could definitely be it. When you say "working the
> edges", do you mean using the eraser on the relevant areas of the
> sharpened layer, or something else?
>
Depends on the nature of the image and how you like to work. I don't
much like working with the eraser. If I go past a step where I made a
mistake, I can only correct it by stepping back, then recreating the
subsequent steps. Here, I would probably create a masked layer of sky &
cloud. If I don't get the mask just right to begin with, it's adjustable.
Then I can adjust areas/edges with the brush, with several options of
opacity, black/gray/white, hardness and flow. And if I later see an area
I don't like, I can just rework that area. Nothing is ever lost, just
selectively revealed.
Some folks might use a brush with blur.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|