when i look at the image on the web site using Internet Explorer 6 and compare to the source image in Photoshop CS, the source is more saturated and there isn't a greenish tinge to the image. the entire anemone should be shades of orange and no other color. the only difference between what is on the web site and what i see in Photoshop is a change in color space. also, since i updated the site with the newest versions of all my *istD photos while converting them to sRGB for the site, i made a crop to the left to remove the light area. i had been thinking about it since i was going through the shots from that day and your comments made up my mind.
i have no idea what kind of animal is in the image above the PUG image. i need someone who is familiar with what appears in marine aquaria to tell me. it's definitely an animal and not a plant since the tentacles move like such animals do. i would hazard a guess it is a colony of another anemone. BTW, the two animal shots are hand held using *istD using the FA 50mm F2.8 macro at 1/20 @ f4.5 using ISO 800. i was under a foot away, getting close to minimum focus distance. Herb.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 9:36 AM Subject: Re: January PUG Comments Part I > Holy crap, Herb, > > That makes all the difference in the world! It's not that the yellows are > brighter or more vibrant, but that I can see many more yellow tones in the > animal. It's kind of like more contrasty, but not really. Just much more > yellow information in there, if you know what I mean. > > Probably more information, period. It seems that the whole thing is > sharper. Believe it or not, with the new image, the focusing seems much > less of a problem to me than the one posted. To be fair to you, I'm going > to rethink my earlier critique, and once I'm done the rest of them, I'll do > another one for your "new" image, because quite frankly (and I'm always > frank with people - I know, bad joke, but I've been using it for like 40 > years now...) it's a completly different image. > > BTW, I thought the "unidentified animal" was a much more interesting > photograph - what the hell is that, anyway? Looks way cool to me!
