On Jul 8, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote
(in article ):

On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Today in the wind North of San Simeon.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg

Processed in LR CCC; original 6000x4000 aspect ratio to 16:10 cropped to
5771x3607; local sharpening limited to subject.

ISO200; 1/1400 @ f/5.0

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg

Processed in LR CCC; original 6000x4000 aspect ratio to 16:9 cropped to
5726x3221; local sharpening limited to subject.

ISO200; 1/1500 @ f/5.4

Oh, yes, indeed!

Thanks.

Here are two mo

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg

Processed in LR CCC; original 6000x4000 aspect ratio to 16:9 cropped to
5243x2949; local sharpening limited to subject.

ISO200; 1/500 @ f/8.0

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg

Processed in LR CCC: 6000x4000, no crop. Local sharpening limited to subject.

ISO200; 1/500 @ f/8.0

I don't want to seem difficult - but I guess I am.

There was a time when, if I had submitted those images, as interesting as they were to me, you would have said harsh words to me about the fuzziness of the
image. It wouldn't have been a personal attack but a strong criticism. I am
particularly thinking of those first photographs of the Mosquito about which
your comments were perfectly justified.

What I would really like to know is a little more about the processing, particularly about the extent to which the images were
cropped and what else if anything was done in their processing. I suspect from their general lack of sharpness and their apparent noise or graininess that
they have been heavily cropped.

There is no heavy cropping. Some stuff might have been subject to Smugmug
resizing for sharing. All processing was done in LR CCC, sharpening was
localized to the subject. I did not need razor sharp wind blown wavetops. I
have added notes below each URL. However, I guess you are seeing whatever it
is you are seeing, no offense taken.

I noted from the EXIF that you were using f/8 at 1/500 with a 200 ASA.
Have you tried shots at a higher speed with a lesser f number?

Not all of them. I had Auto ISO set with base at ISO 200, MAX ISO @ 1600, min
speed set to Auto. See notes above.

Pick one, I would be more than happy to send you the RAW RAF to play with.

--

Regards,
Savageduck