Jack Davis wrote:
John,
It just has more snap than is usually seen. I
appreciate your reasoning and I would have approached
that level as well. The presentation is always the
shooter's choice.
I like the 'look' on my monitor.
What few flat screens I've seen, seem to emphasize
edge pixelation which may explain some sharpening
criticisms.
Jack
--- John Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jack Davis wrote:
John,
Nice depth and texture!
What was the extent of Photoshopping?
Jack
--- John Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is the best picture I took to check out my
new
DS. Lens was the
FA20-35.
And here is the URL:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3699834
Sorry
John Graves
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 -
Release Date: 9/2/2005
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina
relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
Jack,
I expanded the range slightly using levels, unsharp
mask at 80,.5.1 and
resized it with bicubic sharper for the web. I
wanted to retain all the
detail I could in those rock faces. Is that too
much, or not enough. I
am a not a beginner which makes me slightly
dangerous. Sort of like a 5
year old with a knife in his hand.
The ocean is at my back and the crevass you see goes
down about 15
feet. I am still trying to figure out how to take
a picture of that.
Thank you for the remarks
John G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Jack,
Thanks for your comments. I took the picture at f22. I am now starting
to understand what f64 really means.
John G
I am enjoying the journey with photography.
