|
|
Pat Fruen
{K:12076} 2/16/2004
|
The soft colors, light and shadow, tones and texture make this photograph outstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Engström
{K:24473} 2/12/2004
|
Phil, I'm sorry messing up the comments, the server is choking on my less-than-sign:
(3) [snip] ... usefilm (low res less than 640k, but low compression), small file (low res, high compression). If you had a low-res file with low compression here, you could see if you liked the look of the unsharp mask.
Thank you for not taking offense at the suggestion. You have wonderful images in your portfolio and it would be nice to fix things that can be easily remedied. I love Scotland myself and visited maybe a half dozen times when I was still living in Sweden.
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Engström
{K:24473} 2/12/2004
|
Looks like usefilm ate part of my post, here we go with the remainder:
(3) [snip] ... usefilm (low res
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Engström
{K:24473} 2/12/2004
|
Sometimes it helps to scan at a higher resolution and downsample from there if you need smaller files. When I do go to the trouble of scanning something I grab whatever max resolution is meaningful (usually about 300 dpi for prints), and save that as an electronic "original" in a lossless format, or with quite small compression ratio if jpeg is the "archival" format.
Now, for this image I see three separate issues, two of which are affecting the perceived sharpness of the image:
(1) There is no true black in the image - this makes the colors look a little washed-out. The attached file had the black point moved.
(2) The highlights are blown out - this is not so attractive, but it doesn't really affect the perception of sharpness as I see it.
(3) The file is highly compressed. One way to see this if you can't detect it with the unaided eye, is to attempt an unsharp mask to enhance the local contrast. It fails here because a lot of jpeg artefacts start showing up quite clearly... The solution would be to save with less constrictive compression criteria, maybe maintain several files for different uses: scan archive (max res and little compression), usefilm (low res
|
|
|
|
|
Phil M
{K:11526} 2/12/2004
|
Thanks for all the comments! Stefan, a few people have commented on the sharpness of my images (or lack thereof). I scan my prints at quite a low resolution for a number of reasons. Firstly to keep file sizes small so they are quick to download and to enable me to have a good number of pictures on my website (which has limited space). Also it is a bit like my alternative to the watermarking that some people use to try and prevent anyone stealing their images. I figure that if they are not high enough quality to use for anything them no-one is likely to want to steal them! I would like to think that my images are sharp enough for people to enjoy them, but I do take your point that I might not be doing myself justice. I'd be interested to know anyone else's thoughts on the matter!... Regards :)
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Engström
{K:24473} 2/12/2004
|
A great range of layers from near to far. There is something lacking in sharpness in your images that make me wonder how you digitize them. Do you feel that the web versions do justice to your prints?
|
|
|
|
|
Nancy O'Sullivan
{K:63} 1/25/2004
|
Phil, this is like eternal prospective. What a beautiful location and shot. Thanks for the treat! Nancy
|
|
|
|
Bradley Prue
{K:30678} 1/25/2004
|
Phil, this is an incredibly nice photo! the view is amazing. You are very lucky to be able to see all of the sights that you have. I looked at your whole portfolio and found it to be remarkable. Your work is very good, and I'm adding you to my "friends" list, so I wont miss any more. I've done a lot of hiking, and I have included some of those shots into my portfolio, if you care to look. Thanks for this photo! ...Brad
|
|
|
|
|
Adelino Barreto
{K:12661} 1/25/2004
|
Good capture,Phil!
My best regards.
|
|
0 
