>> Looks over-saturated to me, otherwise, v nice.
On 28/6/06, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: >> > >There you have it. I metered off the greenery, it was a nicely overcast >day. All settings in camera and software were standard. It just looks >wrong. Pretty but wrong. But surely as part of the processing of the image, you remove some saturation to achieve what you set out to do ? Of course, you may have achieved it as it is - you may have wanted that amount of colour in the presented pic, and viewers will look at it and either like it or not. Part of the problem is that it will not look exactly the same on two computer monitors! Presenting images for the web is pretty near a futile experience. I treat all my web images as rough guides as to what the shot looks like in print. For me, the print is the pic. I shot some boys cricket the other day (son's team) and bunged a few up on a page for parents to peruse. I didn't spend a great deal of time tweaking the jpegs, but when a father asked for a print (offered at cost) I did a proper job, and it's a belter (first one on the page). <http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/photoessays/essays/cricket.html> Re the 'plastic' look, I've found that shooting at a higher ISO, the prints have a slightly more 'filmic' look. HTH -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
