Candace,
Thanks for the opinion. I still feel that the first version I posted is the
best representation of what I visualized when taking the image.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Candace Lemarr" <CandaceRocks@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 12:50 PM
Subject: [OM] Re: Background Distractions
>I actually prefer Jim's version, but with the tighter crop.
> In Moose's version with the blurred background, I can't get past seeing
> all the "halos" around the flower petals. I am sure this is simply due
> to it being a quick post processing job, but I still prefer Jim's edit
> on this one. I find that for my personal preferences, the background is
> not overly distracting at all with the bright spots. If anything, it's
> more realistic.
> that's my .02 worth. :-)
> Candace
>
>
>
> Moose wrote:
>> Moose wrote:
>>> Nice improvement.
>>>
>>> I would have blurred (more?). The dark center/bright edges bokeh is
>>> still visible, although less prominent. The greater blur in my version
>>> reverses the brightness in OOF highlights; brighter center tapering to
>>> soft edges
>>
>> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Nichols/Lantana01.htm>
>>
>> Moose
>>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|