If I could be so bold I'd like to offer some criticism of your latest
effort. When I first looked at it my instant thought was that this does
not look real. Although the foreground contrast and color diversity has
been enhanced (I'm not ready to say improved because I suspect it's been
a bit overdone) there has been a very significant loss in sky brightness
(and to my eye) accuracy of sky color. The net effect strikes me as
very unreal and I believe the reason is that the sky has become less
bright than the opened up highlights in the mountains. The sky (the
light source) simply isn't bright enough to light the ground.
I wasn't there so don't have any idea what the scene really looked like
but think what I personally would find most pleasing is something close
to the original sky and then foreground and mountains about half way
between the first and second versions.
From non-landscape photographer
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> I take it upon myself sometimes to offer advice on how other's posted
> images could be improved.
>
> And I've taken a bit from others that has pushed me to improve mine. And
> am open, gulp, to more.
>
> Now I'm working on rescanning and processing pics of Yosemite from 2002.
> These were some of the first images I scanned and messed with after
> getting my first scanner.
>
> Some of them hold up very well. Some others... well. phew! Here's one
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Yosemite/020501_00.htm>.
>
> There are still things, one part in particular, that I'd like to
> improve. I could crop it out, but I'm not giving up yet. Still, I like
> to think practice, and better hardware and software, but mostly
> practice, have made a substantial improvement.
>
> Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|