Thanks, Mike.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
On 9/26/2016 5:56 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
The Schnozz's scanner is ready and waiting for round two.
Color really that muted in person?------- Kinda sorta yes, due to the light ,
but doesn't mean the image has to reflect that of course.
Are you referring to the Ektar scan pictures?
Thanks for looking Jim--you are doing a super job keeping the list supplied
with excellent flutterby images.
Afraid slightly overexposed and I did my best at PP. The light was a bit harsh
as this was later in the AM. Ektar does not do well with under exposure as the
shadows really block up but may have overcompensated. Sunny 16 can also wash
out the colors in the Bfly's and lack of good angle light can also wash out
the wing texture--Had 3 separate adjustment layers just for highlights and
added a touch of vibrance to recover some. Two separate LCE layers, one for
the flower and one for the Bfly that did help a bunch. The scan could even
tolater a fair amount of deconvolution sharpening, which is novel for me. I
spent almost an hour on it. Thought it was OK, but some data was gone but
the deficits are still visible the discerning eye. I have a few images from
a bit earlier when the angle of light was better and less harsh as well as
later when some high clouds diffused the light more and exposure was better as
well. I liked the classic composition and nice bokeh, I d
id
not save the PSD but have a 16 bit tiff of the original scan and processed
one. I saved my favorite one for later processing. I have never had such nice
Ektar scans. Ektar 100 still scans better than the older Porta 400 VC-2. I
did get a good print with the latter of one of my favorite images His
Mooseness expertly scanned and processed.
Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|