Moose wrote:
> Russ Butler wrote:
>> Piers Hemy wrote:
>>
>>> ....
>>> "ImageMagick includes a number of command-line utilities for manipulating
>>> images....
>> I use imagmagick for my heavy editing from raw 16-bit tif scan to near
>> final jpg. (Contrast stretch & curve, strong LCE for layering & color
>> profile.) Usually then I only need a bit of touching up in
>> photofiltrestudio. I also use IM to resize for the web. Batch files and
>> the command line are handy as I can do other things while they're running.
>>
> I hope you can hear this without offense, Russ.
Totally. One critique is worth 100 "nice shots" to me.
I am of the opinion from
> images you have posted here, that this blind, command line processing
> doesn't do justice to the quality of your original images.
All but the most recent images I've posted here were made from costco
scans, before I started scanning my own and using imagemagick for
initial editing. (I use IM mainly to do as much editing as possible in
16-bit as I don't have the horsepower to drive a 16-bit image editor.
Waited a bit too long to upgrade, then Vista struck, so I'll wait 'til
at least the fall. I save the raw 16-bit scans so I will be able to
revisit them.) I do final editing of the jpegs in photofiltre. Often
light, sometimes heavy, it all depends.
Anyway, my current edits are more pleasing to me.
Feel free to poke around
http://nfs.nfshost.com/pics07/Winter07.html
http://nfs.nfshost.com/pics07/Spring07.html
(There are a lot of shots there, and too many more from last year. I/we
sort of use it as an album and have to start weeding one of these days.
Or organizing. Yikes.)
>
> You take a great shot, then produce a washed out shadow of the subject
> for the web. Not always, but often enough that it seems to this observer
> that you aren't always putting your best foot forward.
I've had the same impression on revisiting some of my favorite earlier
shots. And felt better about them after pulling the negatives and
scanning them myself. There's always so much more there but then there
are the choices. Can set you crazy. And with me, there is this tug of
war between what it was vs. what I can make from it. A lot of time but a
lot of fun too.
>
> Personally, I think batch processing is fine for images that have
> consistent lighting, like studio work or a series I just shot in Morro
> Bay under a solid overcast, where the light was consistent in all
> directions for hours. One image with the WhiBal in it and I'm set.
> Outdoors with sun and shadow, clouds, moving from area to area with
> different foliage, etc., I don't think it cuts it. And once it's been
> stretched, squished, LCEed, etc. and converted down to 8 bit, what you
> can really do is limited.
I'm sure you are right yet constraint is not a bad thing for me :-)
>
> A few minutes in a real image editor where one can see what's happening
> can turn what looks like a snapshot into something I'd be proud to have
> hanging on my wall. http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/RussButler/18W.htm
>
> Again, I hope you take these comments in the constructive way they are
> intended!
>
I do and appreciate your taking the time.
Thanks.
--
Russ Butler (NJ USA)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|