On Sep 11, 2011, at 1:49 AM, Moose wrote:
> News flash - Carol just came in. I showed her the things I talk about below
> and a version of "Pounding Pemaquid" with
> masked sharpening. Her comment was that I have the same problem as a person
> with perfect pitch, I see little
> imperfections that others don't notice or can't see.
Hummmmmm. <g>
> 1. The tonal crunchiness visually implies to me an equal level of sharpness,
> which isn't quite there in the web image.
> Almost certainly not an issue in a print, and likely not for the aging eyes
> of many here.
There is an even level of output sharpening for the web, but I'm not sure
that's what you mean. I haven't printed the shot yet, so I haven't made any
final determinations about post processing.
> 2. I don't know anything about Silver Effex Pro 2. The tone mapping looks OK
> except at the ends. I think a very similar
> overall effect could be done without any highlight clipping and with less
> shadow clipping - and might look better. I'm
> not sure what you are looking for with Silver Effex. Have you tried
> Image=>Adjust=>Black and White in PS? It gives great
> control of tonal mapping. You can use their presets and make your own,
> especially nice for several shots that should match.
Plug-ins such as Sfx don't do anything you can't do on your own with PS. They
just do it faster and cleaner. Sometimes it's fun to deconstruct what they're
doing and try it on your own, but the level of control in the software makes
that an interesting intellectual exercise without any real merit as far as the
image is concerned. I have frequently used the in-PS methods of conversion to
black and white, from Camera Raw through the black & white layer conversion.
They work fine, but they don't provide the opportunity for going way outside
that I was looking for here. I think I may not have made it clear that with
this image, I wasn't going for journalism, or the traditional black and white
image that I might have made with my old Leica M3 on Plus-X. I've got hundreds
of images of Pemaquid in more realistic poses. The purpose here was to push and
poke at things and turn it into something that lies hidden underneath all that
cliche business. I've got another I'll post in a coupl
e of days that makes the place look positively desolate, and not a little
ominous.
Just FYI, the halo around the lighthouse is in the RAW file as well. I think
Carol may have you on this one. <g> True, Sfx accentuates it, and I'll work on
it a bit more. Sfx provides a really granular level of control so I may be able
to ameliorate it. But, that said, it's not something that really gets in my
way. It's just not that kind of image. I know other photographers would
disagree with me adamantly, and throw down their loupes in disgust, but I ain't
doing this for other photographers. <wink>
More to come on this. I gotta go to work now. Sigh.
> 3. You've got a technical problem with this that's minor, but a big issue to
> me in Day's End. There are thin, bright
> halos around dark things in silhouette. Only really noticeable in this image
> on the lighthouse cupola, but very
> noticeable all around the silhouetted objects in Day's End.
On this one, I gotta say Moose Vision is exceeding my own and I am retreating
behind Carol. <g> I see no such halos. Really. I looked at the 800-pixel wide
web image, and then I called up the original file. I just don't see it, or
them.
Obstreperous Bob
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|