Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Digital Photography -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Done, gone. who wrote (8327)	7/9/2004 9:26:18 AM
From: EdR	Respond to of 21667

Michal, I like them much better than the originals. There is something about clearer and sharper... Ed...

To: Done, gone. who wrote (8327)	7/9/2004 9:31:57 AM
From: Crocodile	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21667

Michal, I just took a look through some of the latest photos which I think I remember best. Did you do some kind of batch process to change them, or modify them as individual shots? I'm guessing batch processing as there were quite a few. First, I guess I would need to see a couple of examples side by side to be sure my memory of the "before" is accurate. <g> However, leaving that aside for the moment, I think I like the saturation bumped up on many of them... this one is a good example of where it works well -- seems to give a better feel of "being there" which tends to be how I like to think of photographs these days (definitely not the only way of thinking of photography, but just the space that I'm in at this point in time). In fact, I've chosen this photo as an example to show what I mean about the "feel" of being there, both because it has a that warm feeling of life to it, but also because the truncated shot is actually pretty much how we see when we're close to something -- our minds eliminate those things outside of a certain frame of interest. 640x480.net Where I didn't feel the increased saturation works -- and again, I'd want to see this one side by side with the old version to see if I remember how it was before -- is this photo. As I recall, it was sort of soft and had a more dreamy quality because of the noise -- probably due to the lower light conditions.. and I think the flipping pages had the appearance of being more blurred -- indicating their movement.. This photo looks different to me now -- a bit too bright and the pages look too "firm". I liked that quality before..something sort of ephemeral about it as these kinds of moments do become almost like dreams to us after awhile and I think the photograph reflected that more before (or at least, I think it did). If you get time, I'd like to see both versions of both of these photos up so that I could take a look at them and see if I'm actually remembering these the way they were before. Might be a good exercise in comparison. 640x480.net Btw, I use a Mac and I do find a lot of difference between how images look in my browser compared to in a couple of my photo editing programs. Then, of course, there are just differences from one computer to the next. I've seen a couple of my snake photos on some PCs with large monitors and sort of gone "WHOA!!! These guys really ROCK right off the screen!!" <g> croc