Nice shot.
It is slightly oversharpened. This is a common problem with high
frequency images that have many small edges in them. The resulting
effect is one of "brittleness" in the fine textures.
I'm not sure what Jack is referring to with regard to "flat screens
emphasizing edge pixelation".
Godfrey
On Sep 5, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
John,
It just has more snap than is usually seen. I
appreciate your reasoning and I would have approached
that level as well. The presentation is always the
shooter's choice.
I like the 'look' on my monitor.
What few flat screens I've seen, seem to emphasize
edge pixelation which may explain some sharpening
criticisms.
Jack
--- John Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jack Davis wrote:
John,
Nice depth and texture!
What was the extent of Photoshopping?
Jack
--- John Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is the best picture I took to check out my
new
DS. Lens was the
FA20-35.
And here is the URL:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3699834
Sorry
John Graves
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 -
Release Date: 9/2/2005
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina
relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
Jack,
I expanded the range slightly using levels, unsharp
mask at 80,.5.1 and
resized it with bicubic sharper for the web. I
wanted to retain all the
detail I could in those rock faces. Is that too
much, or not enough. I
am a not a beginner which makes me slightly
dangerous. Sort of like a 5
year old with a knife in his hand.
The ocean is at my back and the crevass you see goes
down about 15
feet. I am still trying to figure out how to take
a picture of that.
Thank you for the remarks
John G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
