Opportunity came knocking!

On 10/30/2015 8:36 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-31 00:29:23 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/30/2015 8:11 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article 2015102515242116043-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2015-10-25 21:51:52 +0000, Tony Cooper
said:

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:40:11 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 16:19:22 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

Here is an old mood shot, not as good as it could be, but it
demonstrates that not all images should be sharp.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mrs%20bates.jpg

That has an oddly, but nice, 3 dimensional look to it.I wonder if
it's
from the glow that Savageduck mentioned. Anyway, I like it.

Sometimes I think we can get too critical of shots here and pick out
flaws that don't flaw the image.

That depends on the intention of the artist (Peter) and the perception
of the viewer commenting (in this case me). While there isn't much
wrong with the concept of the image, there are some issues for me, and
I made a comment.

Whatever glow the Duck sees doesn't
register with me.

To me the image looks as if Peter has over cooked his post processing,
particularly in the area of sharpening (he has been known to do that).
Then he has made the B&W conversion.

There is a "glow" or "halo" surrounding the seated subject, I suspect
that it is the result of oversharpening during post processing.
Probably one of Peter's unorthodox sharpening techniques.
That it doesn't "register" with you is of no concern to me.

Looks like dodging on an enlarger to me.

OK, This was a single shot. The room was dark and the scene outside
the windows overly bright. I ran the image through NIK HDR Efexs2.

Ah! Ha! Single image tone mapping.

And????


The image had to much contrast, so I cut back the contrast. I over
sharpened the woman in the rocking chair in LAB, I switched back to
RGB and did an overall blur and selectively blurred the woman, to get
the halo effect. I then selectively applied a cloud brush, that I
acquired on the Internet.

Ah! Ha! again.
I was right, it was one of your unorthodox (over)sharpening techniques.

I have never said I was orthodox. Indeed throughout most of my life I
have done a lot of unorthodox things. I tend to think out of the box.



Yes, this was a lot of work.
I appreciate all who commented.




--
PeterN