Posts: 1,067
Threads: 181
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation:
0
Do not take my bad job as an indication of the software - I blew it and should not have posted it. Pavel
Please see my photos at
http://mullerpavel.smugmug.com (fewer, better image quality, not updated lately)
or at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pavel_photophile2008/ (all photos)
Posts: 264
Threads: 35
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation:
0
Hi, Pavel! Oddly, you recently advised me to refrain from experimenting with too many software items. Hmmm
Regards.....Dennis
Posts: 1,067
Threads: 181
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation:
0
How right you are. I could not resist. Hmmm. Pavel
Please see my photos at
http://mullerpavel.smugmug.com (fewer, better image quality, not updated lately)
or at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pavel_photophile2008/ (all photos)
Posts: 3,036
Threads: 253
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation:
3
Of the two I find I'm much more interested in the original. I don't mind the look of luminance noise, but I do find the lack of definition in the treated image to be bothersome. In my experience noise rarely shows in the final prints.
matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com
Posts: 1,067
Threads: 181
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation:
0
I agree Mathew. I should have never posted this. I just got carried away and I was incredibly heavy handed. Thanks Pavel
Please see my photos at
http://mullerpavel.smugmug.com (fewer, better image quality, not updated lately)
or at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pavel_photophile2008/ (all photos)