> On Feb 17, 2024, at 5:08 PM, Paul Sorenson wrote:
>
> Either the middle or bottom image works for me, although of the two I'd
> prefer the bottom. Either of the two has a more defined horizon and I prefer
> the more defined trees (?) in the lower right of the bottom image as compared
>
Either the middle or bottom image works for me, although of the two I'd
prefer the bottom. Either of the two has a more defined horizon and I
prefer the more defined trees (?) in the lower right of the bottom image
as compared to the less defined in the middle image. -p
On 2/17/2024 3:19 PM,
Flickr is being a PITA, so I posted my last rework to google photos
https://photos.app.goo.gl/2Xmnhva9QoBupGf58
Previous attempts are here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/albums/72177720314781277
Thoughts? Feelings? Suggestions?
> On Feb 16, 2024, at 11:46 PM, mike wilson wrote:
>
I don't disagree with the overspiced evaluation but the other doesn't even have
salt and pepper. Definitely more on the foreground but not so much as the
before image, which does seem to have an artefact at the junction of land and
sky. The sky is possibly better in the new version (in that
> On Feb 16, 2024, at 10:15 AM, Alan C wrote:
>
> I couldn't see flying saucers on any of them!
No flying saucers that I know of, just Andromeda and Mars.
>
> Alan C
>
> On 16-Feb-24 08:00 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>> Interesting. Thank you people. I had felt that in general the first
>>
I couldn't see flying saucers on any of them!
Alan C
On 16-Feb-24 08:00 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Interesting. Thank you people. I had felt that in general the first version was a bit
"over spiced". I'm trying to find the right balance between making the image
pop, and overdoing it. If you
Interesting. Thank you people. I had felt that in general the first version
was a bit "over spiced". I'm trying to find the right balance between making
the image pop, and overdoing it. If you look at other photos in the
collection, there is a lot of light pollution close to the horizon,
I'd have to agree with Mike - the 889-pano is more pleasing to me than
NR-HDR-Pano. The milky way is better rendered and being able to better
see the horizon and landscape add to be overall image.
-p
89888-Enhanced-NR-HDR-Pano
On 2/16/2024 2:28 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
I decided to have a
Are you sure you got those the right way round? For me, the previous attempt
is head and shoulders better than the present version.
> On 16/02/2024 08:28 GMT Larry Colen wrote:
>
>
> I decided to have a go at another one of my photos, trying to take advantage
> of new features in
I decided to have a go at another one of my photos, trying to take advantage of
new features in lightroom. It is an HDR panorama (at 15 and 20 seconds). For
the new version I did a lightroom noise reduction of each of the frames before
doing an HDR pano stitch.
I believe this is my
10 matches
Mail list logo
