[LRflex] Re: Jay

  • From: Richard Ward <ilovaussiesheps@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:52:06 -0400

Hi David,
   Please don't make the efforts just on my Comments! I quite frankly and 
utterly was making a statement/inquiry as to whether there were remedial steps 
Up To Your Standards to remedy the poor light you noted the shot having been 
taken in. I honestly didnt give a thought to the posted image BEING the Results 
of Remedial Efforts. I thought the image was shot in noondayish hard light and 
not dappled light. (Maybe that is a tribute to a successful attempt to undapple 
dappled light?) 
   The Comment I would make based upon being disabused of my assumptions is to 
make an analogy using dogs.
A Black Lab can be a beautiful example of a Black Lab.
One can make a Black Lab look like a Yellow Lab,
but One Cannot make a Black Lab into a
Beautiful example of a Yellow Lab.

ie: A Dappled Light Photograph can become a Great Dappled Light Photograph and 
it can be made to look like an Undappled Light Image, but becoming a Great 
Example of such might be an endeavour best left to the Don Quixote's of the 

I hope this writings make some sense and are helpful. To be honest, my side 
effects are kicking in now and I'm uncertain of the intelligence it - I frankly 
now don't understand what I've written. Sigh. 
At least these moments are less often.

richard in michigan

iPads, Lenses, M8's, Oh My....

On Apr 27, 2011, at 12:31 PM, "David Young" <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In a message dated 27/04/2011, Richard Ward said ...
>> Lots of Rightful Pride to catch your elusive seed-eater.
>> You're Right about not being quite as lucky with the light, though.
>> Is there any way to tweak things in the Darkroom to compensate for the hard 
>> light?
>> Context: I know there are a zillion ways to adjust the image in the digital 
>> workflow, to state the obvious, but are there ways 'Successful To Your 
>> Standards' which might be helpful?
> Hi Richard!
> I liked you caveat, at the end.
> The Steller's Jay was a problem, as the day was brilliant, but he was near
> the trunk of the tree... putting him in dappled, but rather deep shade.  I
> suspect I have "over-processed" the shot, trying to make it it's best. 
> I'll see what I can to do to make it look a wee bit less harsh.  Give me 24
> hours or so.
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
Archives are at:

Other related posts: