Thanks for the comment, Godfrey. Yes, I think the droplet highlights don't quite work on the web image. I had though of removing them, but I wanted to keep it faithful to the print image. I made an 11 x 17 last night, and they look quite good on that. I also removed the fringe from her right cheek and right tricep on the tiff. I just forgot to downsize and resave the web version. Paul
> On Oct 4, 2005, at 3:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > I've been hogging bandwidth a bit with pesos, but I think some will > > find this interesting. This is a case where I intentionally burned > > the highlights. Iit's also a picture of a pretty girl, which makes > > it worthwhile in itself. For the background, I wanted the water to > > range from medium gray to a blast of hot, white light where the > > water was hitting it behind the model. I used the Sigma 500 Super > > in high-speed mode to counter the intense backlight. The lens is > > the superbly flare-resistant FA 50/1.4. The numbers are ISO 200, > > F3.5 @ 1/4000th. > > > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3778030&size=lg > > Good work. The highlights at the upper-left corner would bother me if > I hadn't read your explanation that this is where you want the > advertisement to bleed to paper. The glitter off the droplets on her > suit are a bit distracting to me ... I'm looking at it on my laptop > so I know the screen isn't capable of giving quite the resolution > that my desktop system is. in print they should look good. > > Godfrey >
