Rant unnecessary. I used ACR only to put some color and contrast into
what were very flat images. Then I stopped since, as you said: "Don't
bother, unless you get some decent scans." And, as I said: "I'm not
sure there's anything here worthy of scanning for real." But my post
ACR work is usually not much beyond LCE. It's definitely not full
Moostification. :-)
But I was encouraged to see that you picked the same set of images I
would pick myself for a go at real scanning. But that won't happen
soon. I first have to learn to use my new-to-me scanner and review all
the stashed Moose notes on proper profiling. :-) So far the scanner
hasn't seen duty beyond being a color copier.
My biggest disappointment here was image #3. I really like it but just
wish it was better composed with the tree further to the left. I don't
know why it looks as it does except maybe hurryup.
I wish I was still down there to attend this session. I still don't
know how to "see" in the swamp.
<http://clydebutcher.com/journal.cfm?holdtype=169>
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> <rant> I just don't get it. Folks pay lots of money for PS, then use
> the fewer and less complete versions of the PS tools in ACR. Why not
> just buy Elements? </rant>
>
>> Although there's nothing like Moostification yet, not even LCE.
>>
>
> Don't bother, unless you get some decent scans. I took a real quick
> run at them. I can mostly generate a clue as to what's on the film,
> but nothing like a good result. There's sharpening and some sort of
> pixelization, perhaps in part from compression. So anything much done
> to correct them results in awful artifacts.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Others/Norcutt/BigSwamp>
>
>
>> These are just mid-afternoon hurried snapshots enforced by the
>> conditions of the walk with a group of people carrying walking
>> staffs and trying to avoid tripping over hidden roots and logs and
>> who weren't happy with me if I stopped too long.
>
> Story of my photographic life when traveling. :-) Well, my usual
> companion(s) are pretty tolerant, but I do often feel a bit rushed.
>
>> I'm not sure there's anything here worthy of scanning for real.
>
> Nothing Earth shattering, but I'll bet 3, 5 ,8, 9 & 10 could look
> very good, and the rest at least technically decent, snaps or not.
> Remember, it wasn't all that long ago that we were all taking our
> best work with such film and equipment.
>
>> But it does contain one of Nathan's senoritas. I'll bet he didn't
>> know she leads swamp tours on the side. Only her backside is shown
>> to protect her identity. :-)
>
> For backsides, I'm sticking with the jeans in Nathan's last PAW.
>
>> Clyde is shown in the last shot posing beside the "real" image of
>> the one whose smaller brother I purchased and had him autograph
>> that day. It's clear I also needed a 49mm polarizer.
>>
>
> Sure, but it can still look much better than it does. And I only
> spent a few seconds on it.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Others/Norcutt/BigSwamp&image=fh000036er_stda.jpg>
>
>
> Use a decent scanner, use an icc profile, and they will knock your
> socks off. :-) I keep posting these examples - and people keep
> complaining about wussy scans.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Scan/VuesProf/>
>
> Never Give Up Moose
>
> PS: Heck, if you don't think it's worth it to fuss with further, send
> the film to me, and I'll scan it. I'm betting at least a couple of
> them will be really delicious.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
