On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Ryan Lee wrote: > Handsome flower.. I think the post processing really adds to it. Like how > the details seems to appear on the bud (I'd personally like a stop or two > more exposure, but that's just me). I'm also not too sure about what > dropping the background to black did to the leaves though. Might just be my > monitor, but there are black patches on some leaves too.
Yes, dropping to black ruined the leaves. I need to give it anotehr pass, but I was doing this quickly while at work so I couldn't really spend the time on it. I should have used a grayscale mask instead of a B&W one to eliminate the background. > Just out of curiosity, what's the sharpest image you can get out of > a *ist D (or any other digislr for that matter) w/out post > processing? Can you actually get crispy images like you would on > film? Nothing against the medium, but I just find it unsettling how > it seems one would be almost expected to touch up digital shots in > PS. Especially something like sharpness (because then wouldn't the > gap between sharp lenses and not as sharp lenses become relatively > negligible?) I haven't really put much thought into this, but it > suddenly popped into my mind.. Any thoughts? Sharpness through post processing is not the same as sharpness through lenses and won't make up for a crappy lens. Sharpness through post processing just increases contrast in areas with low/medium contrast. On this image it really makes the texture of the flower more noticable. This is not much different to my mind then using contrast filters when making B&W prints. I found that to be an essential part of making good B&W prints. Sharpness on some of my images has been limited by the lens and on some it has been limited by the camera. alex
