But I LOVE Angels!
Mark I
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Phileica/Angels/
and
Mark II
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Phileica/Philichromes/
I must admit that I never wear my glasses when I process my snaps,
and view them on an uncalibrated screen from about 6ft or more ....
Thanks for your input all the same :-)
Amitiés
Dilettante Philippe
Le 3 juin 13 à 07:11, Moose a écrit :
> I don't know who to pick out, so I'll pick out several folks.
>
> I know not only LR causes this, but with the recent discussions of
> LR vs. PS and the many recent posts of otherwise
> lovely images with various versions of the same problem, well ...
>
> Generally, our images here are not of angels, at least not the sort
> wearing halos. And yet, halos abound, on trees,
> buildings, hills, and so on in our images.
>
> Let me define what I'm talking about. USM, in it's many guises,
> including LCE, in its various forms, including the
> Clarity slider in LR, works by enhancing contrast at contrasty
> edges. When overdone, it leaves visible light halos
> around darker objects and, less often visibly, dark halos around
> light objects. Other tools, that don't obviously use
> USM still leave halo tracks; the Shadow/Highlight tool in PS is one
> that tends to leave large, soft, feathered halos.
>
> A very few things that we photograph have a halo from strong light
> behind silhouetted subjects. This may be some
> combination of actual subjects and lens flare, but is not what I am
> talking about. And yet, here and all over the web,
> there are endless images of things with halos. Is it the coming of a
> new age of Angels? ;-)
>
> Since I already did this example, and Bob W is so in Hog Heaven that
> he won't mind being picked out again, here's what I
> hope is a clear example.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Whitmire/w-NewHarbor_ND.htm
> >
>
> I particularly like this example because the halos along the house/
> tree line, upper left are small, but clear, those
> around around the sign are so very obvious and because it has a good
> example of a dark halo. Look at Enlarged Sample 2.
> The sign is what is most obvious, but look at the edge of the rock.
> This very dark line is a more subtle, insidious sort
> of halo. Not always visible at normal size, it may nevertheless add
> an odd, hard to define sense of unreality to parts
> of an image.
>
> So here's a rather random, very incomplete set of examples, a very
> minor Angelic Hall of Fame.
>
> Chris' landscape sunrise is quite lovely, but there is a pixel+ wide
> line of white and lighter gray along the tree line.
> $ to donuts that's not on the original.
> <http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/chris-details.php?product=1642
> >
>
> Phillipe's slightly eerie building lit from below has a similar,
> harder line.
> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/282051-1/Kaunas+-+Lituanie-00267-5.jpg
> >
>
> Here, Bob A. has captured magical light, only to detract from it, at
> least to my eye, with a large halo of artifact
> light around the building and tree competing with the natural light.
> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/rgacpa_HI/L1005768-Edit.jpg.html>
>
> Yes, there are plenty of others, both from some of the above and
> others, but I hope I've made my point - and I'm too
> lazy to track down a bunch more.
>
> I tend to think it's a result of people getting comfortable with the
> Clarity slider in LR, liking the overall effect as
> they crank it up some more and ignoring the details. I think you'd
> find, if you went back over recent years here that
> the overall 'pop' of images we've posted has gone up. People who
> were leery of enhanced contrast and saturation have
> become more comfortable with it.
>
> It seems to me that an interesting thing has happened with images
> posted here over that time. It used to be Moose who
> was most often on the cutting, or bleeding, edge of post processing,
> and rightly called on it often enough.
>
> Now, he has largely learned to temper his effects, while a new
> contingent of post happy folks are leading the artifact
> parade.
>
> In PS, it's fairly easy to use masks to control this problem in many
> color images to the point where it not there, or at
> least isn't obvious. In many cases, selecting the sky in a layer
> prior to the tool causing the effect, making a masked
> layer from that selection and putting it above the affected layers
> simply makes the problem disappear.
>
> B&W is trickier, as selection is harder without color differences.
> However, other tools are more effective for B&W
> contrast adjustment than for color.
>
> I know effects may be brushed in, rather than global, in LR4, but I
> suspect clean edges aren't part of that process, at
> least without lots of time and effort.
>
> Masked Avengel 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/
One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible
to the eye. Antoine de Saint Exupéry in Le Petit Prince.
NO ARCHIVE
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
