Thank you Paul and John, I will carry on shooting scenes with small details , some of them might work well in large size as you say
Thank you Paul and John, I will carry on shooting scenes with small details , some of them might work well in large size as you say
I do not own Photoshop and have never had this resizing issue. My tendency would be to go back before the resizing and alter my processing at what might be the critical stage. Save the un-resized version for printing if needed but make a softer version for resizing by dropping out whatever steps you used that enhanced micro contrast this much. I would rather start fresh to get the targeted result than undermine the final result with excessive denoising. It is not a de facto horrible thing to do. Who knows what art filters do to turn crisp images into romantic daydreams? It just does not seem like a clean solution to me. I have not had this sort of negative effect from resizing but I use iPhoto for exporting. Not a great program for editing but a good storage and transport facility.
The straight wavelet denoise routines are good a softening detail but if applied sufficiently to clear up the reduced size problem little detail would be left.
The answer to the bluebells might have been to tell my wife to wade through the grass to the path and walk up it, reframe and a longer focal length but I don't think that would have worked either. I would probably have to "wade" in the opposite direction to get proportions right too.
John
-
I like this image. I don't mind a little excess detail now and again. A nice, thin, cooperative cloud may have helped to naturally soften it up a bit. Maybe return early or late. I thought a wider crop might help so I did that along with getting rid of the tree on the right:
[IMG][/IMG]
Sometimes removing all the color by converting to black and white can make a complex image simpler.