Wayne Culberson wrote:
> Thanks for all who've replied to this. The one without the church building
> is the original size of the scans from Dwayne's Photo. I uploaded it
> thinking maybe someone might be able to paste the church into it, but maybe
> that is making too much of a fake photo.
Guess you didn't notice, that's what I did. Easier than trying to
eliminate all those lines on such a small image. Didn't feel like
cheating to me - it is the same rainbow.
> It took about a 3/4 of an hour to
> upload the large one on dial-up, and since it's after 11pm here now, I think
> I'll wait until tomorrow to upload the originals with the church building.
> Then maybe you and/or Chuck might work on it if you want. Chuck also
> offered to work on it some.
> I do like how you straightened the buildings and got rid of the wires and
> poles.
To me, it's not just the wires themselves, they seem to constrict or
enclose the main subjects. It seems so much more open without, like it
can breath. I don't have a rollover because the overlap of the images
wasn't even.
> One end of the rainbow is slightly gone, but it looks okay that way.
>
I thought it was nicer than leaving the :-) little building falling down.
> On my monitor, the lawn in front is still almost black. The one I printed
> that way printed almost black also at Walmart. It would be nice to have just
> a bit of detail showing there, if it can be done without lightening the sky
> too much.
It certainly can be done, as sky and foreground are on different layers.
However, that's already how it looks on my monitor. Texture and
graduations of greens are clearly visible. So I was aiming for the same
thing you want. In fact, there is no true black in the lawn at all,
according to my "99% black finder" action.
> The sky around the rainbow was really quite dark with a dark
> cloud, and the sun was directly behind me as someone has astutely observed.
>
Simple observation, since rainbows only appear with the light quite
close to perpendicular. Especially full scale with equal brightness side
to side and with a secondary arc.
> The way it is in your photo is as I remember it. The double rainbow was also
> showing quite plainly.
>
It's not as clear in the smaller shots with the church, another reason I
dropped in the other shot. I did bring it down in brightness to rather
match the church shot.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|