Far behind on list posts - - - I was involved with other things and did little
but try to keep up with reading for some
time.
On 1/26/2011 11:08 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
> I captured Nathan's original image and saved it as .bmp, the histogram looks
> good, don't know what's wrong?
On 1/27/2011 12:38 PM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
> While I appreciate Moose's efforts, I do not at all recognize the histogram
> that he shows. I just looked at both the PSD file (16-bit all the way) and
> the JPEG file in Photoshop, and the histograms I see are nothing like the
> "holed" one he shows.
You guys are right. I have no idea how I got that. I've tried capture three
ways, and none did that. I've removed the
histogram.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wajsman/Biar_Alicantea.htm>
BTW, I've noticed significant vignetting in several other images you posted
taken with this camera.
> As usual, his manipulation does improve the image, no doubt. I have never
> denied that post-processing is not my strong suit.
I think there is a difference in how we view images. Yours are mostly a visual
diary, a way to share what you do and see
with friends. Perhaps also a way for you to go back and re-experience what has
passed by, in memory.
I enjoy them in that way. But I also seem to have an inner critic that
identifies some images as potentially above the
rest and potentially suitable for individual attention. Somewhere in my head,
it's imagining them as framed prints
mounted on a wall. I sometimes follow up by playing to see what that might look
like.
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/
|