I found this difficult to assess, Moose, because the settings change
only when moving between the boxes or back to the original. It would
not change on moving the cursor to the background. Therefore checking
differences on the bottom row was confused by having to move back
across the top row to the original
But 1, 2 and 3 seem to be over-sharpened; 4 looks slightly blurred,
but deepened in tone, 9 seems to be a sharper version of 4. I rather
fancy 4 as a result, but accept that 9 might well be the universal
favourite.
I like the scenery you have depicted in most of your shots, by the
way. From talking of logging, it was a pleasant surprise to see so
much green and water.
Chris
On 25 Mar 2009, at 08:12, SwissPace wrote:
> To my eyes I slightly favour version 9 but I am looking on my
> monitor at
> work.
>
> Nice shots by the way
>
> Ian W
>
> Moose wrote:
>>
>> Today I decided to try some different approaches to the problem.
>> Anyone
>> with sharp eyes is invited to peruse a bunch of alternatives and
>> give me
>> their opinions. Those who can't MF focus anymore may see little
>> difference between some (most?) of them.
>> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Foliage/DownTexture.htm>
>>
>> Any help appreciated.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|