On 1/1/2014 5:28 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> Yes, PSE 11 does layers, but this old guy doesn't...............
>
> I decided that, at my age, I could spend my time better in other
> pursuits than learning to use layers. I will keep working at the tools
> that I use.............. And I will learn to accept a few imperfections...
The good news may be that this is better than last year's.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Nichols/Lineman_Art_221.htm>
OTOH, it still has a lot of halos. How strong they are may be harder to see
without seeing it without them.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Nichols/Small_Town_Infrastructure.htm>
Also, this time, they are of two types, There are the big, soft ones,
(Clarity?) and the thin, hard, white ones
(sharpening).
There are also small detail artifacts throughout. This is a very good showing
for a smallish sensor at 100%. Even so,
it's not possible to do the tweaking you have done, without first reducing
noise, without getting little nasties.
I know, I know, it's a 'big', APS-C sensor, but it still has enough noise at
base ISO that NR is needed if sharpening
and LCE are to be applied and then viewed at 100%.
It's a shame you choose to avoid layers. They may sound like a lot, but are
really quite simple. You make some fine
images that are less well presented than they could be. I'm not sure that the
limited version of layers in PSE will do
what's needed, or not.
Bob has said that the sliders in LightRoom are much smarter, and less subject
to halos. That might give you the option
of sticking with overall sliders - and having fewer artifacts.
Nuanced Layers* Moose
* A very special variety of chicken. Subtle pastel impressionist eggs. :-)
>
> :-)
>
> Jim Nichols
> Tullahoma, TN USA
>
> On 1/1/2014 7:04 PM, DZDub wrote:
>> To be honest, Jim, it doesn't look to me like you are quite there yet.
>> Does PSE 11 employ layers? If I needed shadow recovery on the bird, I
>> might be inclined to do it in a layer and paint it in.
>>
>> Joel W.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Jim Nichols <jhnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Joel, I did some more research on the halos you mentioned. With my
>>> mockingbird images, posted today, I found that I needed to reduce
>>> capture sharpening, and to be more careful with with shadow/highlight
>>> sliders in PSE 11.0. I had some halo in the original mockingbird
>>> close-up, but managed to get rid of most of it in the one that is up now.
>>>
>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/Mockingbird+744.jpg.html
>>>
>>> Thanks for your observation. I'm still learning about PSE 11.
>>>
>>> Jim Nichols
>>> Tullahoma, TN USA
>>>
>>> On 1/1/2014 9:03 AM, DZDub wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Jim Nichols <jhnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For Ken:
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is another blue sky shot, 100% crop, that shows none of the
>>>>> artifacts that showed up in yesterday's posting. The sensor does fine.
>>>>> Sometimes, the editor screws up! :-(
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/Small+Town+Infrastructure.jpg.html
>>>>> X-E1 with Leica Telyt-R 250/4
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments and critiques welcomed.
>>>>>
>>>> I love the strength and detail of the photo, though it looks like there
>>> is
>>>> some fairly thick haloing around the support piece under the big beam.
>>> How
>>>> much PP went into this one?
>>>>
>>>> Joel W.
>>> --
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>
>>>
>
--
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/
|
