|
|
|
Mary Slade
{K:40338} 8/20/2006
|
Thanks Mark for explaining. You know I don't understand the technicalities exactly. But I got the gist of it now. I think it is remarkable being able to do this. Never knew it was possible. Sepia good idea. But to me it's the feel of things whatever anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Sherman
{K:15669} 8/20/2006
|
Hi Mary, it was far away but this lens is a pretty good wide angle lens, any more and it would be noticeable. It tends to push things back a bit. When I scanned it in I made a 100% scan which creates a huge file size, somewhere around 100 + megabytes, so when I crop it and get closer it starts off with a lot more information, not sure if that is the best way to do it, but thought it was worth a go.
I know it's noisy and such that's why I put a bit of sepia tones in it to give an oldie time picture feel, to make up for the lack of "quality". :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Deb Mayes
{K:19605} 8/18/2006
|
What a sweet photo. Using the scanner was an interesting experiment, although the results are noisy.
|
|
|
|
|
Mary Slade
{K:40338} 8/16/2006
|
Mark great original and the distant graves. I also like the closeness of the graves and the central tree. But...I am well puzzled how you saw the doggie from that distance! And how did you get a picture so close?
|
|
|
|
Shirley D. Cross-Taylor
{K:174040} 8/16/2006
|
After seeing the original, I'm amazed that this turned out this well. Awfully noisy still...
|
|
|
|
Mohsen Bayramnejad
{K:21377} 8/16/2006
|
So nice..but, you zoom and croping the attachment shot?! so fine...
I love both of them but surely the unsharpen shot, with so many noise, just a litte distract!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Sherman
{K:15669} 8/16/2006
|
here is the original.
|
far away friend |
|
0 
