Cap'n Jimmy <flyboy@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > At 18:49 +0000 5/26/06, Charles Dias wrote: > > Jim Snarski - Nice buttlefly and a good composition. I Just think > > the image is too light, maybe some contrast and brightness control > > would be nice and could improve it a lot > > there's always that choice...I elected to leave the image > faithful to the original lighting....looked pretty good on my Apple > monitor....I've been told there are differences between PC and Mac > monitors with images being darker on PC's...thanks to your comment I > just learned there is a quick Gamma adjustment in Photoshop's Image > Ready that will adjust a Mac image for a PC...which, if I had done > that, would have made it even lighter!!!.... As has been discussed recently -- the secret to reasonably consistent display on the web is to convert your images (the web copies, not necessarily the masters!) to sRGB color space. Then they'll look reasonably similar on all PCs and Macs, and they'll look *very* similar on the systems of anybody who has bothered to calibrate (I suspect many of us have; I have). > At 1:41 +0200 5/27/06, Pini Vollach wrote: > >Jim Snarski > >I like the background more than the subject. > >The butterfly should be more sharp. ( as in Renate's pic ) > > yeah, and I *should* be rich.... * >) ....maybe it's my eyes > but it looked ok to me....I try not to post an image where the central > subject is out of focus.... How does the left wing look relative to the rest of the butterfly to you? Better/worse, same/different? I'm not at all sure I *know* what's going on, just poking around looking for more info. > At 23:59 -0500 5/26/06, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > Jim Snarski -- Painted Lady -- The background is nicely mottled, and > > anice collection of colors; parts of it make me slightly suspicious > > it's been worked on, but even if that's true I don't mind. The > > righthand plant stalk is either showing poor lens performance, or > > else is just the wrong amount out of focus; it looks harsh and > > unclear at the same time. The left outer wing of the butterfly > > looks quite good, sharp and not jagged. > > hmmmm....depends on what you mean by *worked on*....if you > mean altering the original scene by cloning or some such other > manipulations, no.....the image was cropped and the brightness and > contrast slightly adjusted and that's the extent of it... "Worked on" is rather vague, but I meant it rather vaguely :-). I was thinking of either complete replacement, or else extreme curves adjustment with a separate mask for that region, or other things on that level of alteration. (As I said, I don't think it's important artistically, but I'm a techie and I'm curious; thanks for satisfying my curiosity.) I also recall some posterization or something in the background that inclined me towards that view. > At 9:17 +0100 5/27/06, Chris wrote: > >Jim Snarski - Painted Lady > >A Painted lady on the Emerald Isle, Yes I like it. They usually fly away. > > they do...at which point they become airborne flowers..... > > thanks to all of you for taking the time to comment...it's appreciated > and I learn from your observations Thanks for showing us the photo! -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
