Boris Liberman wrote:
Hehe. Shel, you made some PS adjustment and it looked "more realistic"... No, I am not picking on you, I really am not... It is just a bit funny in light of most recent longer discussion.
If Shel (or anyone) wants to adjust my photos in PS in the cause of making suggestions that they think might improve them, I encourage them to do so wholeheartedly. :-)
I was going to suggest to Steve to use polar filter next time on occasion such as this, and then realized, someone could "hehe" at me as well...
They could, but that's exactly the kind of suggestion that I was hoping for. What would you have used a polariser to achieve? A darker sky? Enhanced/suppressed reflections in the water?
This is finely composed photo that suffers from strong day light - something very common where I live.
Luckily strong light is removable post-capture, up to a point...
Another thing that still comes to mind is that 28-200 is a compromise optic. What if a proper prime lens of similar focal length was used... Meso thinks it would be slightly better...
I'm not sure I follow you here - are you saying that the photo suffers from a technical imperfection that you can attribute to the lens?
Many thanks for commenting. :-) S
