I like the result, Moose, but . . .
1. You remove the dappling of the water's reflections of light on the bridge.
2. My car has gone :-)
Chris
On 12 Jan 2011, at 05:45, Moose wrote:
> On 1/11/2011 5:30 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
>> . . . For instance, the Packhorse Bridge does have quite a range of
>> brightnesses, but it's manageable for me (i.e. I like it :-)). If you have
>> time you might wish to see that image on Picasaweb:
>>
>> http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/vc-9CklBq2D23_vG8tRDAedxpYFNEeSAmNLIvDuRXhs?feat=directlink
>>
>> . . . and see if it still shows the problems you hint at. All the latest
>> images on that blog are on that album.
>>
>> I should be interested in your thoughts (or anyone else's if they have the
>> time).
>
> Hey, tough lighting, but even in the JPEG, very little lost, I imagine the
> slightly blown highlights might be
> recoverable in RAW processing.
>
> I do prefer it with the mid tones and upper shadows lifted and the brightest
> highlights toned down a bit. Also without
> the car and sign. :-)
> - <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Barker/Packhorse_Bridge.htm>
>
> As usual, if the treatment is too much, imagine something in between.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|