Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Some more pictures

Subject: [OM] Re: Some more pictures
From: "Fabio Fiorellato" <flowerside@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:40:32 +0200
Hi Moose,

really glad you attempted at improving my images. I do admit I'm quite a dog
when it comes to postprocess scanned pictures: I usually tend to adjust
levels, remove color casts the Epson 3170 is so famous for, and add a little
*necessary* sharpening.

As a matter of taste I do prefer pictures lying on the "dark side" of the
tonal curve, although sometimes I know they should look too dark for someone
else's taste.

I've seen your processing variations with some difficulties (the rollover
doesn't always work on my browser): judging by the one I've seen, the boy
picture is definitely improved while the boat has an excessively pronounced
"artificial" look that makes it more "pictorial"...

The Polignano a mare view is indeed overexposed on the original slide. Maybe
there's some more room for improvement, but this I'll tell ya for sure as
soon as I can take a look at your work :)

That's all for now

Thanks for your suggestions

Ciao!

Fabio

On 8/19/06, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Fabio Fiorellato wrote:
> > ........
> > Well, where to start?
> >
> > I admit I tend to underexpose a bit when shooting slides (no more than a
> > third of stop, although) and who doesn't, after all? :)
> > .....................
> > Unfortunately my scanner is a low-end one (an Epson 3170) and it has
> proved
> > not to be able to resolve, as I would have liked, neither details nor
> > shadows: there's quite a difference between what I've got after the
> scanning
> > + postprocessing stuff and the original slides, of course.
> >
> Quite a number of images I admire on your site. An enjoyable visit!
>
> Whether you have underexposed a little or not, the scanner/software
> combination have actually done a good job of capturing most of the tonal
> range, they have just distributed it poorly.
>
> Here are some variations in processing of four of your images. I hope
> you don't mind <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Fabio/>.
>
> The salt mine and boat are two that I like a lot where much of the tonal
> detail was buried down in the bottom. The boat may be overdone for your
> taste. I have no idea, of course, what the original slide looked like.
> In any case, anything between the two extremes is easily possible.
>
> Polignano a mare is an opposite example, where the upper part looks
> overexposed.It's easy to assume either that the film couldn't handle the
> brightness range of the scene or that the scanner failed, but almost all
> the highlight detail is still there, really only a small amount clipped.
> For artistic purposes, I'd probably leave the bottom almost as dark as
> the original, but I left it with some visible detail to show it's there
> in the scan.
>
> San Rocco, is just to show that those people pics with the subject in
> shade are often recoverable. The odd light area on his skin isn't an
> artifact. If yo look closely, it's on the origina version too, just os
> dark it doesn't show much.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz