On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have a style? Whoopee! I can go on the road. :-)
Darn tootin'. If I found one of your images under a rock, I'd know it was
yours. :)
I think I'd prefer the jay about halfway between the original and what you
> end up with. The sharpening seems overdone. The blue feathers at the back
> of the neck look unreal at 100% and stair-steppy in the crop.
>
Yes ... and no. I agree it might look better in some ways a little softer.
> OTOH, I wanted to show clearly to those with less visual acuity than us the
> amount of fine detail.
>
> Can I plead that my most recent extensive processing was for a book, where
> printing on semi gloss paper eats up those edges? :-)
>
Oh, all right. I don't print much these days, and I'd like to try a book.
Did you do some test prints at home to determine the amount of sharpening
required to get the result you wanted?
As to the stair steps, it looks to me like that is exactly what's there,
> individual feathers standing up slightly on the head, then going smooth on
> the neck. Might my processing have over emphasized them? Obviously so for
> you, which is useful to know.
I got a 27" monitor in the last couple of months and it has been a
revelation. Images that looked fine at 100% in the past look over the hump
past 50% now. I guess I tend to like the feathers on that part of the bird
somewhat smoother, regardless, so I hold back there. But the thing that
concerns me is not noticeable at normal sizes anyway.
>
> I think the
>> removal of the shadow might have been successful if I hadn't seen where
>> the
>> shadow was. What you patched it with doesn't look quite right to me.
>>
>
> Yeah, wadda'ya gonna do? I can't seem to avoid trying new stuff out. :-)
> Maybe that's what keeps the fun in it for me. What I tried out at first
> was patching it with itself, lightening a copy layer with opaque mask and
> painting in the lighter parts over the shadow. Worked a treat on the head,
> less successfully on the body, where it looks a little smeary. I'm still
> not sure just why.
>
> Anyway, it was fun to try. And as you say, without the comparison, I
> suspect no one would notice the liberties taken. Did you notice the
> disappearing twig? In front of the head.
I'm afraid my attention was absorbed with the white scar on the bird's
breast.
But I also actually like the shadow, and I like the original quite a lot.
> A
> lot of your PP work on this image, at least, seems like gilding the lily to
> me, but it is your vision and your style, I realize, and there is a wow
> factor to it.
>
At least in part, it's what I see in my head when I take the image. I
> literally didn't 'see' the shadows when I took the shot. Maybe that's why
> I'm so unfussy about viewfinders. It's quite a nice image with the shadows,
> but not what I 'saw'.
To yourself be true. Take what I say with a grain of salt.
>
>
> It sets your images apart from others' in way which may or
>> may not be photographic -- I can't really decide.
>>
>
> Well, I might argue that there should be another word than 'photographic'
> there. If you look at what famous photographers have been doing to images
> from the beginning, I'm certainly not outside that term. Karsh's
> retouching, St. Ansel's* darkroom 'performances' of his "negative scores"
> and so on and on ... There are things being done by commercially and/or
> artistically successful photographers today that are farther from what came
> out of the camera than pretty much anything I do.
Yes, point taken. Not a very helpful word here. Again, to yourself be
true.
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/
|