On 12/2/2019 5:54 AM, Philippe wrote:
I quite agree with you Moose
EEK!
that what may have been a good picture yesterday could be considered as lower grade by
today’s standards. And post does matter, a lot.
The Ctein book Wayne linked to addresses a lot of this.
The art of printing in the lab was also something few mastered or cared for, and yet,
look at HCB, whose tireur saved so many pictures, or Ansel Adams who MADE pictures and
didn’t take them, or Sebastian DELGADO, etc - something takes place after they
have clicked, which is an essential albeit sometimes painstaking part of photography.
Note that slides were probably the exception.
Now, to get back to the pup, I attribute the lack of apparent sharpness to the
light (read colour temp) Happens sometimes.
Your version looks much sharper indeed.
My intention is not to show off. "Look, I bought the best sharpener." :-) But to show how the line between pure optical
quality and the amount of clear detail available in photos from it continues to move toward processing. It all started
with distortion and vignetting correction for in-camera JPEGs and matching processing in Raw converters. And with Canon
adding Raw conversion deconvolution correction of lens defects for many of its lenses.
Yet, we lose the golden glow on the fur. Hard to get the best of all worlds ;-)
Agreed, but which world are you after?
Golden - I see no color change in the sharper version.
Glow - do you mean the "glow" effect of lens aberrations, esp. flare? This is something I intentionally use for some
subjects and intentions, but it doesn't seem significant here, to me.
Still, I'm happy to provide more "gold".
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Mike/PuponRock.htm> ;-)
Auric Moose
--
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/
|