Thanks Peter. Yes, I think I overdid the highlight recovery on version two. On Mar 10, 2007, at 11:41 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> I'd go with the first one. The some of it's highlights may be a bit > blown, but the second seems a bit lifeless. > > Paul Stenquist wrote: >> Compare these if you will. One pic lets the highlights live in their >> near blown-out natural rendering. The other pulls them down. Version >> one or version two? >> >> Version One: >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5704742 >> >> Version Two: >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5704375 >> >> Paul >> >> >> > > > -- > Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw > uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. > > > -- > 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
