So what do you believe is the problem in the process and how did you
turn the halos off? (I hope not tediously turning off pixels)
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/16/2011 3:37 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 9/15/2011 10:42 PM, Marc Lawrence wrote:
>> ... Just to think a little sideways...while it looks like a halo, you're
>> close to pounding seas and ocean winds. It couldn't be that low sea
>> spray/mist just blowing up behind there and being caught in the light
>> by your longer exposure?
>
> I have this suspicion that some of the posts in this thread - since mine
> about halos, may be talking at cross purposes.
>
> I was not talking about a general, subtle brightness in the sky above/behind
> the house and trees on the left. I was
> referring to a generally one pixel wide, bright white border there.
>
> Perhaps this will make it
> clearer.<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Whitmire/w-NewHarbor_ND.htm>
>
> I only corrected some sample areas. Yes, the correction isn't perfect; this
> is an illustrative example, not an effort at
> finished work. If my theory is correct, these borders (changing terminology)
> are processing artifacts, not something the
> camera captured, so correction isn't hours of cloning, but correcting the
> process.
>
> Looking at the whole image, from left to right, there are corrections on
> house and first tree to its right, tops of
> pilings against the sky, horizon between pilings and sign, sign and post
> above horizon and left side of big rock.
>
> That last one is correction of a black border, and you may not be able to see
> it in the overall image, but it's clear in
> crop 2.
>
> Borderline Moose
>
>>
>> (A note...I have to be looking for your halo...your photo's halo, that
>> is...to notice it, but then I don't mind it in my own more egregious
>> examples of similar, so I'm perhaps not the best judge. Plus I've
>> started to kind-of drift into that one-eyed nature of being less a fan
>> of your work than a fanatic who will listen to no negative. ;) ).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Marc
>> Noosa Heads, Oz
>> http://www.parknmeter.com
>>
>> On 16 September 2011 01:02, Bob Whitmire<bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Nope, didn't do any shadow/highlight stuff. (I learned a good trick with
>>> s/h, when you need a lot in a little bit of space and not much elsewhere.
>>> Do the lot, mask, fill with black, and paint out where you need the lot.
>>> Does Aperture let you do stuff like that?)
>>>
>>> Not being an engineer here doesn't help, but I'm wondering if the loss of
>>> color alters the tonal scale somewhat and makes some halos appear more
>>> robust in black and white. Not sure if the vocabulary here is right, but
>>> even with all the gradations of gray, color has a gracious plenty, and
>>> continuous tone images seem to be more forgiving in color.
>>>
>>> Will play more.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|