Moose thus grunted:
> Quite agreed. In fact, for me, it's often the distortion that makes the
> shot. Not in this case, though. The slightly imperfect roundness is fine,
> but the edge effects are too much like pixelization at first glance. I can
> see that they are not when I look more carefully, but they detract for me.
Yup. I'll rework it making it round. Actually, I think I'll just redo
the whole thing and move the moon to where I want it. Probably insert
a better moon from another picture.
> And I don't 'get' the rest. I've liked many of your "Slider to the Metal"
> images, but this one doesn't work for me. Naturally, the treeline halos
> offend my picky eye, but that's nothing you didn't already know. Still, this
> case is especially blatant. All that bright white coming through the horizon
> trees, is that something really bright just behind them - or might it be
> halo artifacts?
Yeah, the halo artifacts are the result of a midnight rush job. But
the funny thing is that this is the shot everybody is going nuts over.
> In making it bright, it seems to me that the light has become very
> bad/confusing. The track looks like it is lit by invisible flood lights. The
> trees look like there is another moon behind you lighting them up. Sci-Fi
> multi moon planet? :-)
Localized editing. I selected the middle area and cranked up the clarity.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|