Hi Moose, I'll reply below:
Moose wrote:
> Candace Lemarr wrote:
>> I actually prefer Jim's version, but with the tighter crop. In Moose's
>> version with the blurred background, I can't get past seeing all the "halos"
>> around the flower petals.
> OK, I knew the rules, or should have. You can't do a rough demo of a
> technique. People will focus on the parts that aren't what you are
> showing, rather than what you are.
You're correct.
>
> The point here was to show how bokeh highlights can be changed from
> unnatural circles with bright edges and dark centers to classic Airy
> discs with bright centers tapering gently into darkness by the edge.
Yes, I was aware of your purpose when I viewed the image yesterday.
> This may not be important to you, but is to many people bothered by edgy
> bokeh.
Apparently it is not important to me in this particular instance.
Couldn't tell you why, really, it just doesn't bother me here.
>
> To me, the altered bokeh considerably improves this image.
>> I am sure this is simply due to it being a quick post processing job
> Partly that, but mostly a consequence of working with such a small
> image. Edge effects that would be invisibly small compared to size of
> the petals when working at full size are big enough to see.
I understand. In the past, I have tried to show a technique to others
from a small res file as well, so I understand the challenges.
>
> I have, in any case, done the picky work of cleaning them up, at least I
> hope I got them all. So you can 'get past seeing all the "halos" around
> the flower petals.' You may still prefer the original, but at least not
> for the wrong reasons.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Nichols/Lantana01.htm>
I don't think I preferred Jim's edited version for the "wrong reasons".
I don't know if there are "wrong reasons" why different people prefer
different forms or interpretations of art.
I prefer Jim's edit because in my mind, this is how I would see this
particular wild flower. I prefer my wildflower images to be (generally
speaking) sharper, crisper, and show some of the area the plant is
native to. A macro shot or close up shot, for me, is different. Then I
prefer some soft bokeh. I actually am quite fond of "blurring out the
background" in one way or another (preferably in camera) for many
subjects, but not this time. And I very often do not care for blurring
the background in post processing. But that is just what does or does
not appeal to me. To be honest with you, I would probably look at a
different way of losing or lessening the bright spots in the background
if I were truly bothered by them.
That being said, in no way did I mean any sort of criticism to your post
processing prowess. I think most of the list members are aware of your
skills in that area, and I am fully aware that this was a "demo" and as
I viewed it yesterday, certainly not up to your own expectations for a
finished product.
I honestly just prefer Jim's edit with your crop.
Candace
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
--
Candace & Co
www.CandidCaptures.biz
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|