I'd be curious to see what the in-camera jpegs look like as the fuji's
are usually excellent and I now restrict my use of raws to VERY
difficult lighting conditions.
Philippe
Le 24 oct. 13 à 00:18, Moose a écrit :
> On 10/23/2013 9:33 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>>> So. ... you used a recently new camera for those three shots, but
>>> they do not display well on
>>> my computer set-up, at either the small size or the large size.
>>> They are in focus, and not
>>> blurred by shake, but, they look for all the world like scans of
>>> transparencies which have not
>>> gone all that well. I can't put my finger on what might have
>>> caused this, and wonder if there's
>>> something in your post-processing procedure that has gone astray?
>>> As far as I can see it's not what I would expect from over-
>>> sharpening, but maybe it is?
>> It looks like too much shadow recovery to me. Or the clarity slider
>> got bumped.
>
> Yup, just about to comment "Over processed" myself. Esp. the first
> one.
>
> Bug Eyed Moose
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible
to the eye. Antoine de Saint Exupéry in Le Petit Prince.
NO ARCHIVE
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|