LIked your super sharp stuff, mark -
the woodland stuff is my favorites - I love elite for color stuff,
so saturated...
What did you scan at? What is the resolution of your final files?
and to all -
I think I may be suffering under the illusion that since the way the
photo ends up looking
on your monitor (given we are all using the same monitors and settings)
there wasn't much
point to scanning at more than 300 dpi before switching the jpgs to 72,
because most
looking at the screen could not see the diff anyway. Certainly, low
resolution is better
for not having your work snitched for printing.
I'm beginning to see, though, I think that a photo that is originally
shot on fine grained
film and scanned looks a hell of a lot sharper than one shot with 800
max film. Can
I get some moderately technical explanation about this?
The trouble with being self taught in matters of Photo shop and scanning
is that there
are all these little details you miss!
annsan
Mark Erickson wrote:
> Thanks for the positive feedback. I just have a couple of
> notes. First, I only used a color-enhancing filter for one
> of the images on the page! (One could argue that Velvia
> and Kodak Extra Color films act as color-enhancing filters, though).
> The other note is the this page is heavily edited from a large
> stock of really bad pics.... :+)
>
> --Mark
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
