David Savage wrote:
Bill she's quite lovely. Seeing these she doesn't need anywhere near the amount of Gaussian blur you originally used.
I had a bit of a play and at that image size I found 0.8 pixels of blur was enough, but still keeping the eye's, lips & hair sharp.
BTW after having another look, IMGP7183ns is now my favorite.
She's definintely got "the look" there. Show it to her, get her to do it again and step back a bit, Bill. 8-)
Just my thoughts.
Dave S
On Apr 7, 2005 12:45 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I need a shorter URL....
Anyway, this is straight off the RAW converter, where I adjusted white balance and exposure, and nothing else. The files were resized for the web, no sharpening or softening.
Lens used was the 77mm at around f/8.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/flanneryns_index.html
William Robb
