|
|
|
Gabriela Tanaka
{K:16531} 2/5/2006
|
Dear Roger, this panoramic service is really a plus! I got the feeling that the park was entering my house. As technical quality the shot suffers...maybe overexposure. But as atmosphere it is wonderfully invasive!
Best regards,
Gabriela
|
|
|
|
|
stingRay part 2 .
{K:238996} 2/5/2006
|
Oh WOW! Roger, the full panoramic effect is awesome and I don't think it has suffered from over exposure as Gabriela thinks. I am wondering if the automatic UF sharpening has had a hand in this. It isn't apparent in the large format only in the super duper panoramic size. For all that, it is a great shot and thank-you for looking through the archives. Best wishes as always..Ray
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:84106} 2/6/2006
|
You're right about the poorer quality of this image. I think it might be the high JPEG compression I had to use to get this image in under the 400k file size limit. Or it might be a less-than-optimum use of sharpening. I was experimenting with a new sharpening plug-in back then in the spring and I've learnt some things to avoid since then. Also the lens itself is not THAT spectacular. Thanks for your comment... excuse me if I sound a bit on the defensive. I'm enjoying the colours in your photo-art flower series but as usual feel inadequate to comment.
|
|
|
|
|
Rina
{K:27299} 2/6/2006
|
I likey. It's a delightful park scene. Whether it's the lens, overexposure or over sharpened, when I look at it in pano, the first impression I get is that of a print on canvas. Not a bad thing at all Roger. In fact, there are many UF members who would use a PS filter to achieve the same result. So there ya go! ...
Cheers
Rina
|
|
|
|
|
cessy karina
{K:14205} 2/7/2006
|
very nice panorama of the park Roger
too bad about slight poor quality of image in the big one, I know it's difficult to get below 400k with the panoramic size
nevertheless, very nice picture
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Ernsting
{K:8949} 2/9/2006
|
I love the wide angle and view very much. My favorite type of angle. Well done.
|
|
