«

Savageduck wrote:

> On 2013-03-11 08:34:00 -0700, Pablo <> said:
>
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>
>>> Just bear in mind we only had access to your 721KB file in Flickr, and
>>> that has issues.
>>
>> Issues, huh?
>
> Those issues are the slight blur or OoF with regard to the birds, and
> just a slight color or vibrance tweak.

As you'll see from the original if you download it, it was a crop of a long
distance blurry shot. That was why I was so amazed by what LR was capable
of. Despite the issues, I was *well* impressed.

> I would also suggest that along with the Julieanne Kost stuff, that you
> check Matt Kloskowski's "Lightroom Killer Tips" where he has videos,
> tutorials, and many useful free LR Pre-sets.
> < http://blogs.adobe.com/jkost/lightroom-training-videos >
> < http://lightroomkillertips.com/ >
> < http://lightroomkillertips.com/category/presets/ >
> < http://lightroomkillertips.com/categ...htroom-videos/ >
> < http://lightroomkillertips.com/category/lightroom-tips/ >

I've looked at a few vids, but I don't want to try and run before I can walk
ie; I want to get comfortable with the general flow, before learning killer
tips

>
>> But the piccie on flickr doesn't look as fuzzy as the one you point to as
>> being mine. Bit puzzling, that.
>
> On Filckr I clicked on the image and then selected "All Sizes". From
> there I selected the "Original (1289 x 867)" and downloaded it directly
> using their download link. I made no changes to that file and I had to
> take it in good faith that it was a true representation of the image
> you posted to Flickr.

The size would seem right. In fact on looking again, it looks better on
flickr than it does loaded from my hard disc.

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:34 +0100, Pablo <> wrote:

>Savageduck wrote:
>
>> Just bear in mind we only had access to your 721KB file in Flickr, and
>> that has issues.
>
>Issues, huh?
>
>You're welcome to the original, which was much bigger.
>
>We are straying from the point a tad here, in that this excercise was all
>about me discovering how useful Lightroom is for rescuing crap photos. Until
>I was advised here to have a play with it, I'd all but consigned it to the
>dustbin. How wrong was I? (despite the "issues").
>
>https://dl.dropbox.com/u/28266593/IMG_2449.CR2

It would be dustbin bound for me because none of the flamingos are
posed right and because it isn't sharp. Saturday I took 77 images in
RAW and processed 6 of them. None of the six are really above
average, but they were of my grandson's baseball game and I needed
some for posterity.

Still, even a bad photo can be a learning experience in processing and
a chance to improve your skills in post. That's all Duck and I are
trying to convey.

The time to learn new techniques in processing is before you have a
really good image with some slight, and correctable, flaws. You don't
want to be learning on a real keeper.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

On Mar 11, 9:41*am, Pablo <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> otter wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 8:30 am, Pablo <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >> Savageduck wrote:
> >> > On 2013-03-10 15:16:38 -0700, Savageduck
> >> > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
> >> > ...and here is the side-by-side:
> >> > <https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_162.jpg>
>
> >> Just taken another look. I don't get it. The one on the right looks like
> >> mine. The one on the left has the birds more blurred.
>
> >> Was that the intention?
> > It's the other way around.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> Here's the pic with the suggested changes.
>
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/28266593/IMG_2449.jpg
>
> I prefer the original.
>

It's odd how the mind can play tricks with your vision sometimes. As
an independent observer it is clear to me that the one on the left is
the same as the link you gave to your flickr page. Of course, flickr
has a way of butchering pictures with their jpeg encoding and
compression.

I'm not going to flog this dead horse further.