Fred, Fussiness was meant to be one of those dual-meaning terms for both lack of a definitive subject, but also for the lack of apparent sharp focus. This image has a kind of Brownie Hawkeye look to it. You are probably correct in that the photo looked much better before it was processed for the Web. A shot with a lot of detail as your "Newburyport Bridge" photo, must almost be over-sharpened for decent Web reproduction. I don't know much about Paint Shop Pro, but you can get almost all of the utility of Photoshop with _Adobe Photoshop Elements_. It has almost as much power as Photoshop, and in many ways it is easier to use. The big thing it does not have is the ability to do CYMK work, which you need basically only if you are sending your work to the print shop for reproduction. For Web work, inkjet printer work and email, Elements is all you need. I think Wally World has it in the $65 range. It is probably available at many places on the Web. I am looking forward to your future submissions. peace and pixels, rand ----- Original Message ----- | Hi Rand, | | Thank you for your critique. For some reason, my photos generate questions. | By fuzziness, do you mean | indecisivness in subject matter or do you mean the finish? The last | reviewer or two have commented on some problem with the finish or at least | that is what I make of their comments. I use Paint Shop Pro to do my | reductions for these shots. Perhaps it is introducing some pixellation. I | can see it on my monitor, too, after the shots have been posted. They look | ok before I send them. Should I consider another program for these kinds of | things? I can't afford Photoshop, but inexpensive programs would be worth | considering. | Yours, | <<fred.vansand2@verizon.net
