In a message dated 5/26/2005 9:19:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's a nice shot, I like the composition, but it really needs more apparent sharpness in my opinion. I added a little USM to it in photoshop, (the default setting out of the box), and it seemed to be a big improvement. You might want to play with those parameters a bit. ========== Okay, I will. The RAW shots, in camera, are a bit soft, of course. And I haven't been sure if just using sharpening in RAW conversion was enough. Obviously, in some cases, not.
As far as the pic goes, it was autofocus (all those details are about the same distance away), and so the actual shot should be sharp enough. Unless, that is, I was doing it manual and got the focus off a bit. Thanks for the comments. I think it's sort of a sexy photo, myself. I'll play with it. I used to always use USM, now I am trying to sharpen through conversion, and obviously I don't have it quite down yet. Or maybe I'll always have to do some USM. Marnie aka Doe ;-) ------------------------------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >This looks kind of artifacty again in my browser, even though it shouldn't. >Oh, well. > > > >Something different. At least from me. :-) > >I may do a gallery of these, or a collage. Have shots of some dating from >1928-1950's. Or maybe not, we shall see. > >http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/pages/pump1.htm > >Comments, welcome, naturally. > >Marnie aka Doe > > > > -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
