Interesting. "Moose Version 2" manages to look 'realistic' while
still bringing out the clouds and contrast between the temple and the
sky. The deeper shadows on the temple definitely give it a more 3D
look.
Did you correct the perspective distortion from the 28mm somewhat as
well? The temple seems a little more 'squat'? Or maybe that's just
the combination of slight rotation and contrast.
Brent
On 24/10/2008, at 3:27 PM, Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> I like the middle one best. I think the problem with the layers/
>> masks version is that the building is too bright relative to the
>> dark sky which makes it look unnatural. Somewhere between the two
>> is probably the right mix.
>>
> I agree with the relative brightness issue. Also, perhaps in the
> channel
> mixing or some other processing, the shadows on the lower part of the
> temple became very flat, making the building appear flat.
>
> My efforts are grainier/coarser than the original, as a result of
> working with a small considerably compressed JPEG. No masks are needed
> to perk up the color version, says the Masked Moose.
>
> I rather like the second B&W version, as a non-representational
> 'ethereal' version placing the temple outside normality. I offer a
> more
> down to earth alternative with contrast and texture in the temple
> giving
> a 3D quality to it.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Rutherford/Bahai.htm>
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|