tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1721344177867541891.post3933162158085524144..comments2023-03-26T23:43:26.524+08:00Comments on doonster: Pictures & thoughts: Reworking old materialdoonsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04558926453149764893noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1721344177867541891.post-35908066115449952922008-01-14T18:33:00.000+08:002008-01-14T18:33:00.000+08:00You're not alone...You're not alone...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1721344177867541891.post-10017656692341410742008-01-14T17:28:00.000+08:002008-01-14T17:28:00.000+08:00Kjell Harald, looking from work, I see what you me...Kjell Harald, looking from work, I see what you mean. Obviously you can't see the difference in an 18" print from a small web version either.<BR/><BR/>I'll put together another post to better show the differences.<BR/><BR/>I've got so used to translating my on-screen to a print view that I can "lose" the view of the on-screen version.<BR/><BR/>As you can probably tell from this and earlier posts, I struggle a bit with on-screen & web optimisation.doonsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558926453149764893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1721344177867541891.post-41451906845892059442008-01-14T14:33:00.000+08:002008-01-14T14:33:00.000+08:00I Martin,I can't really tell how it will look on p...I Martin,<BR/>I can't really tell how it will look on paper, but from the jpegs I think you may have gone a bit over the top with the sharpening and burning. I actually think the old one looks better on screen.<BR/><BR/>If the jpeg you're showing is the one prepared for print, and not screen, it may well be just fine. After all, an image prepared for paper almost always looks a bit overdone on screen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com