That would work, but I like the blue sky, fake or not. It's a bit theatrical, but in my experience, that sells. Paul On Mar 9, 2007, at 1:40 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
>> >> From: >> Paul Stenquist >> No. Second layer and some eraser work. I think I overdid the softening >> of the edges, however. May have to go back and sharpen up a bit. It >> will go to stock in this mode. Hell, most art directors replace the >> sky anyway. >> Paul >> On Mar 7, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Brendan MacRae wrote: >> >> Channel mask? >> >> You devil! >> >> -Brendan >> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Okay, so the white sky sucks. I went back and reshot >>> that bird when the >>> sky was better. I found him in exactly the same >>> place. Imagine that! >>> :-)) >>> >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5691710&size=lg > > I don't know who was complaining about the white background, but that > looks fake as all get out. It's no improvement. > > You'd be better off grabbing some of the background out of this one: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5458320 > > or out of this one: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4194560 > > Properly blurred, those could enhance the image of the bird. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
