Jack, I have no idea what you're referring to with the mention of '"enhancement" and it's sub menus'. And, of course, it's your photograph: as long as it pleases you, that's enough.
However, you asked for comments and critique. To my eye, on my monitor, the line of the fence on the grasses is degraded because the tonal separations there are too close together. This is a shame because that fence line would lend a wonderful feel to the photo were it rendered a little more clearly. I wouldn't want to change the overall balance of the photo, it's nice as it is; a gentle adjustment curve to separate those tones (and a mask to prevent the adjustment from affecting anything else) so that they would one to see the composition well in a print or on screen is all that's necessary. I don't know what tools you're using to do your image processing, but if there are "submenus" to effect such adjustments it seems awfully crude. Godfrey On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:24 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > In the past I've messed with "enhancement" and it's sub menus and > have, > always, come back to this rendering. > Oddly, perhaps, I don't want to make out color tones or see MORE > detail > in the fence or meadow grasses. > When I reached a point where I could comfortably feel the weight of > the > fence line, I stopped. That, together with the stance of the bull(?), > were my total concern. > The sky was a soft wispy gift. > >> I like the concept, but would do a bit of work on the rendering. The >> >> foreground is just in that middle area between being too dark to >> matter and needing a bit of work to pull up some tonal separation. >> >>> Instantly loved the stance, grabbed up the camera (LX w/A 70~210 >>> \f/4) >>> and got this shot before it moved. >>> >>> http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=143 >> -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
