On 8/8/2012 9:03 PM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 05:12 PM, Moose wrote:
>> I like the composition. I wouldn't crop it, as others have suggested, if
>> only because I like the clouds on the left.
> I got off an alternative with the M-S 180/4.5 that is an "in-camera"
> crop. It just eliminates the clouds altogether. It's OK, but I was
> drawn to the clouds and hoped to make them work somehow.
They make it for me. Again, something about the farm in context of wide horizon
and sky.
>> Well, no, it's also something about the sweep of country that would be
>> lost. Still a nice image, but different, more
>> closed in.
>>
>> I'd probably lift the shadows and lower mid tones a little, below the
>> sky.
> You are probably assuming that I didn't do both those things? In any
> case, not as much as you'd have done, obviously.
:-)
> I used a medium red
> filter, which has the effect of darkening the foliage, but really it was
> already quite dark in the shadows. Not enough "there" there. I am also
> a slave to my memory of what I saw, but I will see if I can get more
> detail in the trees. I think I am pretty well satisfied with the sky.
I'm not sure actual visible detail is what my eyes crave, as much as relief of
big, black holes. Just a little tonal
texture would do it, I think.
I know too well the "slave to memory" thing. Someone recently suggested a
change to one of my images. I realized they it
would indeed be improved - and that relative fidelity to memory was why I
hadn't done it.
>> A couple of things slightly bugged the ol' Eagle Eye, probably only to do
>> with the web image.
>>
>> The grain in the sky has done something slightly odd with the clouds. I'm
>> not sure I dislike the effect, but it does
>> look unnatural to me.
>>
>> There's something funny going on, edges/texture/?? in the area below the
>> barn, right up to the dark brush - that
>> probably only I can see. :-)
> I think the web image is a bit over-sharpened. I let Focus Magic
> sharpen a pixel's worth. Might that explain it?
Indeed it might. A pixel's worth at web size would indeed be a probable cause.
One of the other deconvolution tools I
tried allows partial pixel steps. Just how they do that, I'm not sure. I always
do FM in a new layer (via an Action),
and adjust the effect with layer opacity. Only a very few images that size look
right with a full pixel.
> ...
> Some of the time, FM is just too aggressive with web files (for my
> taste anyway).
Emphatically agreed, as above.
> Thanks very much for your comments, Moose.
Mon Plaisir Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|