> Fred, you probably didn't mean quite what you said about poor photos - > unless it is necessary for imparting information to a viewer, no amount > of "fiddling" using Frank's word, is going to turn a poor photo into a > good one. OF course if you captured something in part of a frame that is > wonderful and something weird happen way over to one side, or at the > bottom,well, that's what cropping is for, right?
Hi, Ann. When I said "poor photo" I was specifically referring to one that might be a bit over- or underexposed (and I didn't make that very clear, did I? - <g>). I agree with your main point - a poor photo (in most ways that a photo can be considered to be poor) will not be helped to being a good one, but will only end up as a manipulated poor photo - <g>. Even before having a digital camera body, I'd done some print scans, and I learned early on that a little tweaking with the gamma setting helped a number of my photos, bringing otherwise hidden details out of the near-mud in some shadows. Of course, reprinting the photos from the negs would also help here, but I've never been really happy with any of the local labs here. Fred
