On 9/16/2011 1:29 PM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
> Hey, thanks! The enlargements make it much easier to see what we're talking
> about. I think you're right. There's something in the processing that's
> messing with things. Not sure exactly what.
Hallelujah!
Sometimes one needs to carefully define what's being talked about.
> Mayhap I"ve been resorting to plug-ins too frequently and not hand-wrangling
> enough. Or maybe I'm just not paying close enough attention at each step of
> the processing.
I'd vote for the latter. No need to throw out the good plug-ins with the
proverbial bathwater.
> At any rate, the New Harbor shot is basically a throw-away, as an early
> effort with the 10-stop ND, and not under the best conditions for that effect.
>
> The other halos we talking about, around the lighthouse in the over-the-top
> Sfx image, I have corrected and eliminated by doing what I mention above,
> playing attention at every step of the post-processing. Haven't posted the
> new version yet, and may not. Depends on how the eventual print looks. If I
> like the print, I'll repost the shot. If I don't, into the electronic bucket
> it goes.<g>
>
> Thanks again. That granular level example did the trick.
De rien, c'est mon plaisir.
Communicative 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/
|