I usually don't use the effects (beyond sharpen, unsharp mask, and very
occasionally soften) because with my limited artistic abilities they always
make my pictures look worse. If you have found one that works for you, use it.
Your modified picture looks fine.
Now, to add my two cents to what others are talking about on this thread: I use
Micrografx Photo Magic Version 4 even though it's four years old. Why? because
I'm used to it, and because I got it for $25.00, with a $20.00 rebate.
Thanks, Steve Goss, Dallas Tx usa
Damon Wood wrote:
>
> Hi pples!
>
> I have to say that I am impressed with the latest version of A**** Photoshop.
> The picture, at the following link,
http://au.photos.yahoo.com/bc/deewhy_au/vwp?.dir=/Damon
+Photo+Extravaganza&.src=ph&.dnm=Buskers.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%3a//au.photos.yahoo.com/bc/deewhy_au/lst0.000000
ir=/Damon
%2bPhoto%2bExtravaganza rc=ph%26.view=t
> was originally (after print) unfocused, and to tell you the truth, was
> lacking character and a little flair. But I knew the pic had those elements,
> and well, I found them via the filter 'solarise'.
> I am not a fan of software induced results at all, and for me, this was the
> first. I honestly think it fits the pic quite well.
> Anyway, I have finally used an effect to render an originally dissapointing
> photo that I thought would turn out a lot better.
> What do you guys think? All comments are welcome!
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|