Must be a problem with viewing on a monitor. To my tired old eyes, the
first Mooseification looked better. The second looks better than the
first. I'll bet if he did a third, I'd like it, too. <g> But my eyes
are old and tired. In what I've done after posting the picture, most
of the effort has been on bringing out detail in the breaker. It's
amazing how much is actually there. The problem with water, though, is
that when you bring out too much detail, it really does begin to look
artificial. A fine balance is needed, and it's hard to portray
accurately in little bitty images. Why don't all of you drop by next
week and we'll look at some prints? <g>
--Bob Whitmire
www.bwp33.com
On Aug 27, 2009, at 5:32 AM, Moose wrote:
> Chris Barker wrote:
>> The result in the tones looks good, for me, Moose, but the rocks
>> now look too sharp. They stand out too much from the background
>> sea and look unnatural for me.
>>
> Joel Wilcox wrote:
>> The moosification looks unphotographic and incoherent to me. I
>> can't decide whether you've just gone too far with a process that,
>> if needed, needed a lot less, or whether it just wasn't really
>> needed at all.
>>
>> Sorry, this one seems off-kilter somehow.
>>
>
> Well, there's a lesson I've learned before ... Don't cut corners. I
> was
> really only trying to show how much interesting detail in the crashing
> water was hidden in the highlights, but I should have masked it so the
> effect wasn't strong on land.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Whitmire/senoritas0026surf.htm
> >
>
> Try Again 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/
|