 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Those are a couple of interesting ideas... I'll shelf them for the time
being to let the brain cells time to adjust :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-8-2014 0:07, Stephen wrote:
> To me that is much better, I can see the cat now. ;-)
> IMO these images with deep shadows and bright sunlight need a compromise
> as our eyes adjust in RL. But cannot do that on an image.
> Don't you think that there should be some dust in the air?
>
>
Yes, and the compromising is delicate as the notion of 'acceptable'
tends to vary from person to person in this case. In the present case a
bit lighter or darker would also be possible. ;-)
Some dust. Yes indeed. Totally forgot that.
Some images are never finished. There are a lot of things I could still
tweak, add, move, etc in this one :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/08/2014 08:25, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
> Yes, and the compromising is delicate as the notion of 'acceptable'
> tends to vary from person to person in this case. In the present case a
> bit lighter or darker would also be possible. ;-)
>
It is IMO a tricky shot to call but I think that you have got it right
with this one.
> Some dust. Yes indeed. Totally forgot that.
>
You might be house proud I am not. :-)
> Some images are never finished. There are a lot of things I could still
> tweak, add, move, etc in this one :-)
That is so true.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 14.08.2014 09:25, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 14-8-2014 0:07, Stephen wrote:
>> To me that is much better, I can see the cat now. ;-)
>> IMO these images with deep shadows and bright sunlight need a compromise
>> as our eyes adjust in RL. But cannot do that on an image.
>> Don't you think that there should be some dust in the air?
>>
>>
> Yes, and the compromising is delicate as the notion of 'acceptable'
> tends to vary from person to person in this case. In the present case a
> bit lighter or darker would also be possible. ;-)
Not only does the notion of "acceptable" vary from person to person, but
-- I guess even more importantly -- it also varies from display to
display. Experience in these newsgroups has shown over and over again
that people complaining about images being too dark tend to change their
mind once they have been coaxed to calibrate their display properly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Am 14.08.2014 09:25, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> > On 14-8-2014 0:07, Stephen wrote:
> >> To me that is much better, I can see the cat now. ;-)
> >> IMO these images with deep shadows and bright sunlight need a compromise
> >> as our eyes adjust in RL. But cannot do that on an image.
> >> Don't you think that there should be some dust in the air?
> >>
> >>
> > Yes, and the compromising is delicate as the notion of 'acceptable'
> > tends to vary from person to person in this case. In the present case a
> > bit lighter or darker would also be possible. ;-)
>
> Not only does the notion of "acceptable" vary from person to person, but
> -- I guess even more importantly -- it also varies from display to
> display. Experience in these newsgroups has shown over and over again
> that people complaining about images being too dark tend to change their
> mind once they have been coaxed to calibrate their display properly.
Nonsense. They just need to increase/decrease the number and density of
rods/cones in their eyes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/15/2014 10:55 AM, clipka wrote:
> Not only does the notion of "acceptable" vary from person to person, but
> -- I guess even more importantly -- it also varies from display to
> display. Experience in these newsgroups has shown over and over again
> that people complaining about images being too dark tend to change their
> mind once they have been coaxed to calibrate their display properly.
>
Old CRT I had before.. something must have overloaded the damn caps in
it, or something, at some point. It was so dark that even if you turned
up the gamma in games, or the like, it was still "darker" than it should
be. Never realized it was that bad, at all, until I decided to go with a
whole new system, with wide screen LCD, then.. Holy... lol
--
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/08/2014 21:33, jhu wrote:
> Nonsense. They just need to increase/decrease the number and density of
> rods/cones in their eyes.
LOL
A nice trick if you can do it. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 15.08.2014 22:33, schrieb jhu:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 14.08.2014 09:25, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>> On 14-8-2014 0:07, Stephen wrote:
>>>> To me that is much better, I can see the cat now. ;-)
>>>> IMO these images with deep shadows and bright sunlight need a compromise
>>>> as our eyes adjust in RL. But cannot do that on an image.
>>>> Don't you think that there should be some dust in the air?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes, and the compromising is delicate as the notion of 'acceptable'
>>> tends to vary from person to person in this case. In the present case a
>>> bit lighter or darker would also be possible. ;-)
>>
>> Not only does the notion of "acceptable" vary from person to person, but
>> -- I guess even more importantly -- it also varies from display to
>> display. Experience in these newsgroups has shown over and over again
>> that people complaining about images being too dark tend to change their
>> mind once they have been coaxed to calibrate their display properly.
>
> Nonsense. They just need to increase/decrease the number and density of
> rods/cones in their eyes.
That actually wouldn't do the trick. Turning off any other light sources
in the room might though, if the problem is reflection glare.
For wearers of corrective eyegear like me, cleaning the glasses from
time to time might also help ;-)
(And yes, dusting off the display may also helpful.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/08/2014 23:52, clipka wrote:
> For wearers of corrective eyegear like me, cleaning the glasses from
> time to time might also help ;-)
>
> (And yes, dusting off the display may also helpful.)
+1
Top tips :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-8-2014 18:45, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/08/2014 08:25, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>
>> Yes, and the compromising is delicate as the notion of 'acceptable'
>> tends to vary from person to person in this case. In the present case a
>> bit lighter or darker would also be possible. ;-)
>>
>
> It is IMO a tricky shot to call but I think that you have got it right
> with this one.
Yes, I believe so too. Now, I dearly need Bill's isosurface trick :-)
>
>> Some dust. Yes indeed. Totally forgot that.
>>
>
> You might be house proud I am not. :-)
Neither am I!
Only this morning I took a little time to clear away the dust that had
accumulated on the less-used parts of my desk over the last 8 months ;-)
>
>> Some images are never finished. There are a lot of things I could still
>> tweak, add, move, etc in this one :-)
>
> That is so true.
>
And especially when different scenes are being worked on at the same time...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
