Ken Norton wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the lesson but all I really wanted to know is exactly where is
>> the haze. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place.
> Sorry, I pulled a Jimmy Carter on you.
>
> The "haze" of which we are referencing is two-fold. First of all, when there
> is extreme bright and extreme dark in a slide you'll see a haziness over the
> dark areas not unlike if you shot the picture through a dirty filter. The
> second form is the halo that surrounds bright objects.
>
Chuck, once corrected, it should be pretty easy to see on the roll-over
below. It's a band along the center of the bright trunk, becoming wider
toward the bottom. It's hard to see against the glaring trunk, so I've
shown it against the tamed down version.
So, folks, all very interesting about the relatively subtle
flare/whatever. What about the image as a whole?
First, the primary subject looks wildly overexposed. Actually, the
highlights aren't clipped, but the tonal distribution is way off.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/FGonzalezG/Trunks.htm>
Second, the primary subject is soft. Whether from inexact focus,
vibration, aperture, scan or some combination, once the excessive
brightness is corrected, it's just not sharp. Looking at my version now
full size, I see I oversharpened it, although I may still prefer it to
the original softness.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|