If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions Wanted
On 5/25/14 PDT, 11:14 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-26 02:15:13 +0000, Savageduck said: On 2014-05-26 00:59:14 +0000, Savageduck said: On 2014-05-26 00:04:49 +0000, PeterN said: On 5/25/2014 6:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 25 May 2014 16:21:55 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 5/24/2014 7:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 24 May 2014 11:35:48 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 5/23/2014 10:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: smip Now it's https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...s0Am5pTwRtDQva In your BW conversion you seem to have lost the texture in the sky. I lit a subtle sky with texture, the green foreground a darker green, and the bare branches gone. I don't think you need them. Please post another link to the NEF and I should have a chance to play later today. Link coming up: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC1370.NEF Here is my version, using a 2 x 3 aspect ratio: I saved a layered tif. To help you to follow what I did, the layers are labeled. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.tif I had some DB issues, so I also saved a jpeg. I assigned the ICC profile Adobe RGB to maintain tonal integrity. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.jpg I like your treatment of the hills. You have also done a very good job of preserving the texture and tonal subtleties of the sky. I can now see the spots which Savageduck complained of. :-( thanks, It's all a matter of personal preference. Always, but dust spots have nothing to do with personal preference. They should be fixed at the earliest possible stage of post, otherwise they can become a visible problem as they are in your version. I did only minimal sharpening in ACR, That's OK. adjusted the color to neutral gray. Not that you could tell from the *Background layer*. Just to check that my eyes were not deceiving me, I went back to your *Background Layer*, and if anything my thoughts are confirmed. There is no "neutral gray" there, if anything saturation/vibrance has been boosted, and CA exacerbated. Also your sloppy branch trimming starts to show up, as does a bunch of noise. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_722.jpg Snipped bits out To me the subject is the totality of the image with the coastal hills/mountains shrouded in an etherial mist/fog, and by imposing that imbalance, the subject and image are ruined. OK! Just to be fair, I revisited the project and got rid of the twigs with a little bit of care. I used *Content aware-fill* to do that. I reprocessed the NEF with ACR and corrected the CA & fringing. Then came some basic adjustments, and some masked sharpening. (there is no need to apply sharpening to the fogged out sky or the soft detailed fog cloaked hills, that gets noisy). and cropped in ACR to 16:9. Into PS CC, duplicated background layer. Used Content aware-fill to make the twigs vanish. Next some NR with NIK Define. On to the B&W, and this time, for a change I used OnOne Perfect B&W. So what you will find in the folder is a PS screen capture, a JPEG, and a layered PSD. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/10ne14df8...%20Project%202 Overall tone is better. In all instances, though, the foreground is too sharp. The very dark image shown earlier doesn't work for me, either. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions Wanted
On 5/25/14 PDT, 6:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-25 23:49:41 +0000, PeterN said: On 5/25/2014 6:00 PM, John McWilliams wrote: On 5/25/14 PDT, 9:58 AM, Savageduck wrote: Le Snip I am not really a fan of “quick & dirty” B&W conversions, straight greyscale mode changes, etc. I feel that I can get so much more out of the original by using a color sensitivity adjustment, or filter approach in ACR, LR5, or with a dedicated plugin such as NIK Silver Efex Pro 2. That way I can take a relatively bland shot and get an acceptable B&W rendition. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_718.jpg https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...951_Edit-3.jpg BTW: One might be tempted to comment on the level of the horizon, but from that position out on the Carrizo Plain, which is bisected by the San Andreas Fault Zone, there is very defined rise from West to East. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_719.jpg Can't resist: As the human eye, in situ, doesn't naturally see such a tiny tilt, I'd remove it from the print. If this was an image with water I'd agree. Land however, is usually hilly. And the old run=down building has more of a decrepit look, when tilting. If you look at the left most vertical corner of the building you will see that it is set square. Whatever happens to the rest is irrelevant. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_719.jpg Well, OK, it's just fine as is. I've spent too much time on the water and too much time editing and critiquing tilted horizons. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions Wanted
On 5/25/2014 8:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-25 23:02:28 +0000, PeterN said: On 5/25/2014 5:28 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-05-25 20:43:24 +0000, Savageduck said: On 2014-05-25 19:48:39 +0000, PeterN said: On 5/25/2014 12:58 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-05-25 00:42:52 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Sat, 24 May 2014 16:58:39 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-05-24 23:17:30 +0000, Eric Stevens said: Le Snip I don't think Dropbox photos helps the images. Here is a JPG of my quick and dirty B&W. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...26W%20copy.jpg Sorry that doesn't work for me. It is neither here, nor there as a B&W conversion. Your opacity adjusted layer technique isn't right for that image. The way it is presented it has a bad selective color feel to it, and the contrast for the hills looks too harsh. This is where I prefer my softer approach with the sight selenium tone. https://db.tt/TT7e6kYX Yours works better in a smaller print viewed more closely. I think mine works better in a larger print likely to be viewed from across a room. Mind you, I'm not going to print a large and small of each to find out whether I'm right or not. :-) My views have nothing to do with the fact that I can't find a quick and dirty way in PS to emulate your image. I have several ideas which will make it a piece of cake if they work. I would particularly like to try a gradient 50% grey fill. Right now I'm going to have lunch. Considering everything overall, this has been a very helpful discussion. I am not really a fan of quick & dirty B&W conversions, straight greyscale mode changes, etc. I feel that I can get so much more out of the original by using a color sensitivity adjustment, or filter approach in ACR, LR5, or with a dedicated plugin such as NIK Silver Efex Pro 2. That way I can take a relatively bland shot and get an acceptable B&W rendition. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_718.jpg https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...951_Edit-3.jpg BTW: One might be tempted to comment on the level of the horizon, but from that position out on the Carrizo Plain, which is bisected by the San Andreas Fault Zone, there is a very defined rise from West to East. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_719.jpg I like it. Thanks. I have a particular fondness for B&W rendering these days, where the interpretation can add to character and the viewers impression of the image. In the case of the Carrizo Plain shots, there is a wind blown desolate feel to the place which seems to be better expressed in B&W than color. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/10ne14df8...arrizo%20B%26W or http://tinyurl.com/l9xkqwm It was a slow sync. I don't know why. These should work: jpeg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.jpg The layered tif https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.tif Nice try, but no cigar from this pair of eyes. In fact it is a mess. The layered TIF tells the story. You have mixed and mismatched techniques. Starting with your *Background Layer* which I assume got to PS via ACR. you have pushed the saturation, and/or vibrance into the beyond good taste level. So much so there is a very noticeable color fringe halo at the foreground vegetation/ocean boundary on the right. There is also a fair amount of CA and noise present. Next you did some healing and/or cloning on the Background Layer* before adding *Layer 1*. In *Layer 1* you did way too much to fix things that didn't need fixing, such as your bad removal of the branches. The cloning/healing is too conspicuous. There are bits of branches and foreground frond suspended in mid-air, and some areas are badly smudged. While dust spots were left untouched. Next you did your favorite thing *Lab* and screwed things up royally and unnecessarily. That curves adjustment buried the foreground in impenetrable dark, and imparted a totally out of place tone, along with a particularly harsh contrast. Big mistake. There are times Lab should not be touched, this was one of them. Then you went to NIK Silver Efex Pro 2 and started with damaged goods. At this point it was beyond saving. Silver Efex Pro wasnt going to rescue this, and didnt. Then inexplicably, you added a *Stamp visible 50% mult* layer, (whatever the Hell that is?), to drive the final nail in the coffin of this production by removing whatever remained of any hints of foreground definition. I am sorry to say this is a time your method did not work. You would have done much better if you had applied your RAW adjustments with some restraint, whether you used ACR or something else. (and done the spot fix). Then as the first step in PS, apply some NR, I prefer NIK Define. Now forget about Lab (I know you think Lab is wonderful) and got straight to NIK Silver Efex Pro 2, or if you prefer OnOne Perfect B&W. Adjust to taste, and avoid my harsh opinion when my eyes hurt. Give it another try. You are right that I didn't do a cleanup. As for the rest of your comments, I like the overall effect. Negative and positive comments are always appreciated. All I can say it that I like the overall look. YOu are right -- PeterN |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions Wanted
On 5/25/14 PDT, 3:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-25 22:00:47 +0000, John McWilliams said: On 5/25/14 PDT, 9:58 AM, Savageduck wrote: Le Snip I am not really a fan of “quick & dirty” B&W conversions, straight greyscale mode changes, etc. I feel that I can get so much more out of the original by using a color sensitivity adjustment, or filter approach in ACR, LR5, or with a dedicated plugin such as NIK Silver Efex Pro 2. That way I can take a relatively bland shot and get an acceptable B&W rendition. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_718.jpg https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...951_Edit-3.jpg BTW: One might be tempted to comment on the level of the horizon, but from that position out on the Carrizo Plain, which is bisected by the San Andreas Fault Zone, there is very defined rise from West to East. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_719.jpg Can't resist: As the human eye, in situ, doesn't naturally see such a tiny tilt, I'd remove it from the print. "Remove it from the print." Brilliant! I should have thought of that. I just hope I removed the "it" you were thinking of. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...951_Edit-4.jpg I know you knew what I meant, and how to do it easily. Yes, you'd lose .5% to 2% of the photo somewhere. If you do so, how does it look? After re-thinking, perhaps a straight horizon would lessen the impact of the image. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions Wanted
On 2014-05-26 15:56:40 +0000, PeterN said:
On 5/25/2014 8:38 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-05-25 23:02:28 +0000, PeterN said: Le Snip It was a slow sync. I don't know why. These should work: jpeg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.jpg The layered tif https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.tif Nice try, but no cigar from this pair of eyes. In fact it is a mess. The layered TIF tells the story. You have mixed and mismatched techniques. Starting with your *Background Layer* which I assume got to PS via ACR. you have pushed the saturation, and/or vibrance into the beyond good taste level. So much so there is a very noticeable color fringe halo at the foreground vegetation/ocean boundary on the right. There is also a fair amount of CA and noise present. Next you did some healing and/or cloning on the Background Layer* before adding *Layer 1*. In *Layer 1* you did way too much to fix things that didn't need fixing, such as your bad removal of the branches. The cloning/healing is too conspicuous. There are bits of branches and foreground frond suspended in mid-air, and some areas are badly smudged. While dust spots were left untouched. Next you did your favorite thing *Lab* and screwed things up royally and unnecessarily. That curves adjustment buried the foreground in impenetrable dark, and imparted a totally out of place tone, along with a particularly harsh contrast. Big mistake. There are times Lab should not be touched, this was one of them. Then you went to NIK Silver Efex Pro 2 and started with damaged goods. At this point it was beyond saving. Silver Efex Pro wasn’t going to rescue this, and didn’t. Then inexplicably, you added a *Stamp visible 50% mult* layer, (whatever the Hell that is?), to drive the final nail in the coffin of this production by removing whatever remained of any hints of foreground definition. I am sorry to say this is a time your method did not work. You would have done much better if you had applied your RAW adjustments with some restraint, whether you used ACR or something else. (and done the spot fix). Then as the first step in PS, apply some NR, I prefer NIK Define. Now forget about Lab (I know you think Lab is wonderful) and got straight to NIK Silver Efex Pro 2, or if you prefer OnOne Perfect B&W. Adjust to taste, and avoid my harsh opinion when my eyes hurt. Give it another try. You are right that I didn't do a cleanup. I guess I noticed that. As for the rest of your comments, I like the overall effect. You like the overall effect of my comments, or the overall effect of your rendition? Negative and positive comments are always appreciated. I agree. I am just sorry that seeing what you did to an image with great potential prompted me to make viscerally harsh comments on what I still hold to be a failed result of bad choices in post processing. I was speaking my mind and I believe what I said to still be valid. All I can say it that I like the overall look. Oh well! There is no accounting for taste. My eye does not see beyond a failed post processing mess. YOu are right Of course I am. ;-) -- Regards, Savageduck |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions Wanted
On 5/26/2014 2:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-26 15:56:40 +0000, PeterN said: On 5/25/2014 8:38 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-05-25 23:02:28 +0000, PeterN said: Le Snip It was a slow sync. I don't know why. These should work: jpeg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.jpg The layered tif https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.tif Nice try, but no cigar from this pair of eyes. In fact it is a mess. The layered TIF tells the story. You have mixed and mismatched techniques. Starting with your *Background Layer* which I assume got to PS via ACR. you have pushed the saturation, and/or vibrance into the beyond good taste level. So much so there is a very noticeable color fringe halo at the foreground vegetation/ocean boundary on the right. There is also a fair amount of CA and noise present. Next you did some healing and/or cloning on the Background Layer* before adding *Layer 1*. In *Layer 1* you did way too much to fix things that didn't need fixing, such as your bad removal of the branches. The cloning/healing is too conspicuous. There are bits of branches and foreground frond suspended in mid-air, and some areas are badly smudged. While dust spots were left untouched. Next you did your favorite thing *Lab* and screwed things up royally and unnecessarily. That curves adjustment buried the foreground in impenetrable dark, and imparted a totally out of place tone, along with a particularly harsh contrast. Big mistake. There are times Lab should not be touched, this was one of them. Then you went to NIK Silver Efex Pro 2 and started with damaged goods. At this point it was beyond saving. Silver Efex Pro wasnt going to rescue this, and didnt. Then inexplicably, you added a *Stamp visible 50% mult* layer, (whatever the Hell that is?), to drive the final nail in the coffin of this production by removing whatever remained of any hints of foreground definition. I am sorry to say this is a time your method did not work. You would have done much better if you had applied your RAW adjustments with some restraint, whether you used ACR or something else. (and done the spot fix). Then as the first step in PS, apply some NR, I prefer NIK Define. Now forget about Lab (I know you think Lab is wonderful) and got straight to NIK Silver Efex Pro 2, or if you prefer OnOne Perfect B&W. Adjust to taste, and avoid my harsh opinion when my eyes hurt. Give it another try. You are right that I didn't do a cleanup. I guess I noticed that. As for the rest of your comments, I like the overall effect. You like the overall effect of my comments, or the overall effect of your rendition? Negative and positive comments are always appreciated. I agree. I am just sorry that seeing what you did to an image with great potential prompted me to make viscerally harsh comments on what I still hold to be a failed result of bad choices in post processing. I was speaking my mind and I believe what I said to still be valid. I would hope you continue to say what you feel. All I can say it that I like the overall look. Oh well! There is no accounting for taste. My eye does not see beyond a failed post processing mess. YOu are right Of course I am. ;-) Borrowed a page out of a book by nospam, I see ;-) -- PeterN |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions Wanted
On Mon, 26 May 2014 08:27:55 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote: On 5/25/14 PDT, 4:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 25 May 2014 13:40:30 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-05-25 20:21:55 +0000, PeterN said: On 5/24/2014 7:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 24 May 2014 11:35:48 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 5/23/2014 10:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: smip Now it's https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...s0Am5pTwRtDQva In your BW conversion you seem to have lost the texture in the sky. I lit a subtle sky with texture, the green foreground a darker green, and the bare branches gone. I don't think you need them. Please post another link to the NEF and I should have a chance to play later today. Link coming up: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC1370.NEF Here is my version, using a 2 x 3 aspect ratio: I saved a layered tif. To help you to follow what I did, the layers are labeled. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.tif I had some DB issues, so I also saved a jpeg. I assigned the ICC profile Adobe RGB to maintain tonal integrity. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.jpg You still have some DB issues, neither of those was delivered. *ERROR 404* I got them OK. As far as "tonal integrity" for online delivery and general viewing goes, sRGB is all that is needed for the 8-bit JPEG since PP is complete and the wider ProPhoto RGB & Adobe RGB gamuts are now superfluous for most displays. Pro Photo always has been. Unless you have unusual color management settings the wide gamut of Pro Photo is squeezed down to that of the monitor. (Otherwise it is truncated at that of the monitor.) That used to mean you ended up looking at Pro Photo via sRGB but monitors are improving. My several-year-old Dell U2410 monitors are very close (97%) to AdobeRGB. In any event sRGB is the right one to use for posting on the 'Net...... Not necessarily: only if the recipient's browser is not colour-aware. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions Wanted
On 2014.05.26, 11:25 , John McWilliams wrote:
As to water, I usually shoot both fast and slow shutter back to back. *Some* images with water all blurry via slow shutter speed are just too trite. The difference between movement and trite is pretty narrow. So I shoot more than 2 of each with different speeds... I like to think these make it: http://tinyurl.com/pgoarws http://tinyurl.com/lgdwo9f -- I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions Wanted
On Sun, 25 May 2014 23:14:59 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2014-05-26 02:15:13 +0000, Savageduck said: On 2014-05-26 00:59:14 +0000, Savageduck said: On 2014-05-26 00:04:49 +0000, PeterN said: On 5/25/2014 6:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 25 May 2014 16:21:55 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 5/24/2014 7:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 24 May 2014 11:35:48 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 5/23/2014 10:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: smip Now it's https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...s0Am5pTwRtDQva In your BW conversion you seem to have lost the texture in the sky. I lit a subtle sky with texture, the green foreground a darker green, and the bare branches gone. I don't think you need them. Please post another link to the NEF and I should have a chance to play later today. Link coming up: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC1370.NEF Here is my version, using a 2 x 3 aspect ratio: I saved a layered tif. To help you to follow what I did, the layers are labeled. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.tif I had some DB issues, so I also saved a jpeg. I assigned the ICC profile Adobe RGB to maintain tonal integrity. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.jpg I like your treatment of the hills. You have also done a very good job of preserving the texture and tonal subtleties of the sky. I can now see the spots which Savageduck complained of. :-( thanks, It's all a matter of personal preference. Always, but dust spots have nothing to do with personal preference. They should be fixed at the earliest possible stage of post, otherwise they can become a visible problem as they are in your version. I did only minimal sharpening in ACR, That's OK. adjusted the color to neutral gray. Not that you could tell from the *Background layer*. Just to check that my eyes were not deceiving me, I went back to your *Background Layer*, and if anything my thoughts are confirmed. There is no "neutral gray" there, if anything saturation/vibrance has been boosted, and CA exacerbated. Also your sloppy branch trimming starts to show up, as does a bunch of noise. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_722.jpg Then did a slight curves adjustment in LAB mode on the Lightness and b channels. No kidding! That was in my opinion the wrong move. By working in LAB it waas easier to bring out the tonal subtleties. There was not one *tonal subtlety* revealed by your Lab treatment. If anything any subtlety was obliterated. The B&W conversion was done in Nik, with some adjustments to the shadow & highlights. OK, it is just that any chance you had of producing something pleasing was gone by the time you started removing branches and foliage. Opacity of the conversion layer was cut back to 75% opacity. Why? Your final layer made any opacity adjustment to the NIK layer superfluous. I saved it as a layered tif, so you can play with the layers for yourself. Yup! Evidence of the crime remains intact. I also like the little puffs of smoke and flying fragments where you blew up the flax stalks protruding from the greenery. :-) Thank you It doesnt work for me, That is nothing more than sloppy and smudged branch and foliage removal. Apart from that, I think the greenery in the foreground is rather too dark, but that's just my preference. It is all a matter of individual preference. To me, the subject is the mountains. To my eye a lighter foreground detracted from the subject. To me the subject is the totality of the image with the coastal hills/mountains shrouded in an etherial mist/fog, and by imposing that imbalance, the subject and image are ruined. OK! Just to be fair, I revisited the project and got rid of the twigs with a little bit of care. I used *Content aware-fill* to do that. I reprocessed the NEF with ACR and corrected the CA & fringing. Then came some basic adjustments, and some masked sharpening. (there is no need to apply sharpening to the fogged out sky or the soft detailed fog cloaked hills, that gets noisy). and cropped in ACR to 16:9. Into PS CC, duplicated background layer. Used Content aware-fill to make the twigs vanish. Next some NR with NIK Define. On to the B&W, and this time, for a change I used OnOne Perfect B&W. So what you will find in the folder is a PS screen capture, a JPEG, and a layered PSD. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/10ne14df8...%20Project%202 I think that the hills should be sharper. I don't know the extent to which the softness is an artifact of Dropbox. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions Wanted
On Mon, 26 May 2014 09:55:12 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote: On 5/25/14 PDT, 3:42 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-05-25 22:00:47 +0000, John McWilliams said: On 5/25/14 PDT, 9:58 AM, Savageduck wrote: Le Snip I am not really a fan of quick & dirty B&W conversions, straight greyscale mode changes, etc. I feel that I can get so much more out of the original by using a color sensitivity adjustment, or filter approach in ACR, LR5, or with a dedicated plugin such as NIK Silver Efex Pro 2. That way I can take a relatively bland shot and get an acceptable B&W rendition. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_718.jpg https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...951_Edit-3.jpg BTW: One might be tempted to comment on the level of the horizon, but from that position out on the Carrizo Plain, which is bisected by the San Andreas Fault Zone, there is very defined rise from West to East. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_719.jpg Can't resist: As the human eye, in situ, doesn't naturally see such a tiny tilt, I'd remove it from the print. "Remove it from the print." Brilliant! I should have thought of that. I just hope I removed the "it" you were thinking of. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...951_Edit-4.jpg I know you knew what I meant, and how to do it easily. Yes, you'd lose .5% to 2% of the photo somewhere. If you do so, how does it look? After re-thinking, perhaps a straight horizon would lessen the impact of the image. You could always use puppet-warp. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Upgrade to CS3 - Opinions Wanted | Steven Wandy | Digital Photography | 15 | August 13th 07 07:16 AM |
Upgrade to CS3? Opinions Wanted | Steven Wandy | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | August 10th 07 12:20 AM |
Opinions Wanted | remove | Digital Photography | 5 | October 7th 06 06:46 PM |
Opinions wanted, red sensitivity issue perhaps? | Cheesehead | Digital Photography | 2 | April 17th 06 12:06 AM |
Opinions wanted on Minolta Z6 | crazygolfer | Digital Photography | 1 | November 27th 05 02:21 PM |