OT Photoshop query

The Reids said:

As i'm a lazy git can someone point me in the right
direction here, my eyes are glazing over with the manual. I
have 2 landscapes, sky good on one exposure. Land good on
other. They are very similar but probably not identical,
(no tripod used). It strikes me the sky from one and the
land from the other would make a useful image. Whats the
best way to proceed?

If the skyline isn't too complicated, no trees for example.
Copy the good sky onto the good land one set opacity to 50%
and try dragging it to get a good alignment. If that fails
try a free tansform to get the skylines to match.

This explains what to do when the pictures *do* match. luminous-luminous-Open ↗
landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml You may have
to do some masking if you cant get a decent match over the
whole frame.

You could get somewhere close by using contrast masking a
single frame. luminous-luminous-Open ↗
landscape.com/tutorials/contrast_masking.shtml
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"

The Reids said:

As i'm a lazy git can someone point me in the right
direction here, my eyes are glazing over with the manual.
I have 2 landscapes, sky good on one exposure. Land good
on other. They are very similar but probably not
identical, (no tripod used). It strikes me the sky from
one and the land from the other would make a useful image.
Whats the best way to proceed?

My experience is that they are very difficult if not
impossible to match up. Best technique to use is to take the
two photos on a tripod in the first instance (I realise
that's not practical now). Only then will you ensure that
the two photos will line up.

It's not just a question of physically lining them up. If
the composition is different then the lens distortion will
be different in different parts of the picture, especially
if you used a wide angle lens. I've tried this and no amount
of moving and rotating would get the two skylines to match -
the differences due to lens distortion were obvious when
placed on top of one another.

If the sky is very similar on both pics then you could cut
out the good sky just above the horizon and paste it onto
the other pic. Then you'd only have to get a good blend
between the skies rather than have to match it to the
horizon. You'd use layer masking for this of course.

1. Paste good sky pic on top of good land pic.

2. Apply layer mask to the sky pic. Use Hide All. This
gives a black mask that completely hides the top layer.

3. Use the brush tool to modify the mask. Painting with a
white brush will erase the mask and reveal the top
picture. Paint over the sky to replace the old sky with
the new. Larger brush sizes have softer edges so you
get a smoother blend. If you make any mistakes you can
switch to a black brush to paint the mask back. You can
change to smaller brush sizes to work on areas of
detail if necessary.

If the skies don't match at all it might be better to
position the good sky slightly lower in the image, so that
the good sky's horizon is below the good land's horizon. In
this way you wouldn't need to match the horizons perfectly.
What you would need to do is make the layer mask match the
horizon perfectly. Fortunately this can usually be done
quite easily.

4. Go to the Channels window. Look at each of the red,
green and blue channels to determine which has the best
contrast between sky and land (specifically along the
horizon). It's usually the blue channel but not always.

5. Drag the appropriate channel onto the Create New
Channel icon at the bottom of the window. This creates
a copy of the channel.

6. Using the Levels tool, drag the shadow slider to the
right until the land is completely black and drag the
highlight slider to the left until the sky is
completely white. They will meet in the same place
giving reducing the entire image to just black and
white. Ideally the sky will be completely white and
land black, but often they won't be.

7. If they aren't, use the brush tool (with hard edges) to
paint black over any white bits of land and white over
any black bits of sky. You should end up with a
perfectly white sky and black land with the dividing
line matching the horizon perfectly.

8. Hold the control key and left click on the new channel
you've just created. This will turn the black and white
image into a selection.

9. Click on the RGB channel, then the Layers window to go
back to working on the pic normally.

10. Click on your top layer (assuming you've already pasted
it in) then add a layer mask using "Reveal Selection".
This will match the horizon perfectly allowing your new
sky to cover the old sky. As I said, if you drag the
new sky down a bit you'll avoid the problem of having
to match the horizon with both pics.

11. It's usually a good idea to apply gaussian blur to the
mask to smooth the join between images, but since your
images will be different you'll need to use quite a
small number. Experiment to see what number looks best.

The above may sound a bit complex but it's easy once you've
done it a few times. You can always recreate the selection
if you lose it by going back to the black and white channel
you created, then holding control and left clicking on it.

One more thing. If you are going to blend two different
images it's a really good idea to enlarge both images first,
the larger the better, at least twice as large. After the
blending you would then reduce the image size back to the
original. This will help to smooth what might be an
otherwise obvious join.

Finally, I must say that after a lot of hassle trying to do
this sort of thing myself, I consider it far preferable to
work on a single image. Unless you have two identical
compositions taken on a tripod the hassles just aren't worth
it IMO. Working on a single image is infinitely easier and
can produce far better results, provided there's no under or
over exposure in the image.

So, is the sky over exposed in one image and the land
under exposed in the other? (I mean do they have
completely white or black areas?). I'm guessing that the
good land shot may have an over-exposed sky, whereas the
good sky shot will have dark but not completely under-
exposed land. Is that right?

As you may know from my digital comments I tend to expose
for the sky and let the land go dark. I then use contrast
masking to brighten the land without over-exposing the sky.
There's no reason why the same principle can't be used with
film scans, except that you'll have less exposure latitude
on slides.

Dark land may look pretty naff in the original, but when
brightened it can look fine. It does tend to lose a bit of
colour and contrast though, so after brightening it often
needs a little boost in contrast and saturation to help
bring it back to life.

So if your good sky photo has dark land but not completely
black, my advice would be to work on that picture alone.
Scan it using the Long Exposure Pass mode so as to extract
as much shadow detail as possible and minimise noise. You'll
then have a decent scan to work from.

You know how to do the contrast mask, don't you?

12. Duplicate layer.

13. Desaturate new layer.

14. Invert new layer.

15. Change layer mode to Overlay.

16. Apply Gaussian Blur to layer. Values from 150-250
usually work best
IMO.

When done, flatten the image. You may need to brighten it a
bit using Curves.

Then boost the local contrast (not the overall contrast)
using the Unsharp Mask too. Set the radius to 250, threshold
to 0 and amount to say 10-20%. Experiment with the amount,
but don't use too much. This does not sharpen the picture,
it boosts the contrast, but in a local not a global way.
(Compare with a normal contrast increase if you want to see
the difference.)

Finally you might need to boost the saturation a little.

HTH.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

The Reids <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

As i'm a lazy git can someone point me in the right
direction here, my eyes are glazing over with the manual.
I have 2 landscapes, sky good on one exposure. Land good
on other. They are very similar but probably not
identical, (no tripod used). It strikes me the sky from
one and the land from the other would make a useful image.
Whats the best way to proceed?

As your'e a lazy git you've got no chance of doing this.
There is a lot of work involved.

Following up to Paul & Phil

Quoted message said:

My experience is that they are very difficult if not
impossible to match up.

I will look up techniques mentioned. As the skyline is
simple once I have tackled splitting the image in two
I should be able to shift the land "up" a bit to
overlap the join.
--
Mike Reid "Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London
"fellwalk.co.ukfellwalk.co.ukOpen ↗" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "fell-walker.co.ukfell-walker.co.ukOpen ↗" <-- dontuse@
all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Phil Cook

Quoted message said:

If the skyline isn't too complicated, no trees for example.
Copy the good sky onto the good land one set opacity to 50%
and try dragging it to get a good alignment. If that fails
try a free tansform to get the skylines to match.

i'll try this first then tackle the splitting the image in
two if no joy.
--
Mike Reid "Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London
"fellwalk.co.ukfellwalk.co.ukOpen ↗" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "fell-walker.co.ukfell-walker.co.ukOpen ↗" <-- dontuse@
all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids said:

Quoted message said:

If the skyline isn't too complicated, no trees for
example. Copy the good sky onto the good land one set
opacity to 50% and try dragging it to get a good
alignment. If that fails try a free tansform to get the
skylines to match.

i'll try this first then tackle the splitting the image in
two if no joy.

You're thinking about this the wrong way. You don't actually
"split" the image, you simply copy one photo on top of the
other, so that you have two layers. You then apply a layer
mask to the top image. Then you simply paint (B) onto the
mask using white to reveal the top layer or black to hide
it. It's easy, try it. It's non destructive so you can mess
about with the mask as much as you like. It only becomes
destructive when you "Flatten" the layers.

When you've masked the top image to your satisfaction you
can move (V) it around. The mask moves with it. So if you
want to shift the land up a bit it's probably best to put
the land layer on the top and mask that. Masks can only be
applied to upper layers, not the base layer.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Other than merging the two pictures as discussed above (which is not
easy to do well):

If the sky is not 'good' because it is slightly overexposed,
you can rescue it by applying a 'digital graduated grey
filter'... To do this, select Layer>New, and in the
properties window select 'Color burn' in the 'Mode' box.

Then select the lightest grey for the foreground color using
the color picker.

Using the gradient tool, drag the gradient down from the top
of the frame to a point where you'd like the grey to end
(holding the shift key while you do this will keep the line
dead straight). Once the grad grey is applied you can adjust
the opacity to suit your tastes. Once you're happy, flatten
the image (under the 'layer' menu).

This method can also be used from the bottom up if your
foreground is overexposed. The technique won't make a bad
image good, but it can rescue an 'almost' kind of pic.

Regards,

Michael S

Following up to Paul Saunders

Quoted message said:

You're thinking about this the wrong way. You don't
actually "split" the image, you simply copy one photo on
top of the other, so that you have two layers. You then
apply a layer mask to the top image. Then you simply paint
(B) onto the mask using white to reveal the top layer or
black to hide it. It's easy, try it. It's non destructive
so you can mess about with the mask as much as you like. It
only becomes destructive when you "Flatten" the layers.

When you've masked the top image to your satisfaction you
can move (V) it around. The mask moves with it. So if you
want to shift the land up a bit it's probably best to put
the land layer on the top and mask that. Masks can only be
applied to upper layers, not the base layer.

thanks Paul!
--
Mike Reid "Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London
"fellwalk.co.ukfellwalk.co.ukOpen ↗" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "fell-walker.co.ukfell-walker.co.ukOpen ↗" <-- dontuse@
all, it's a spamtrap

Michael S said:

If the sky is not 'good' because it is slightly
overexposed, you can rescue it by applying a 'digital
graduated grey filter'...

Depending on your definition, over-exposure can't really be
"rescued". It can be improved but if part of the sky has
gone completely white it'll stay that way, or be reduced to
a featureless grey. You can never recover detail that's
been lost.

Slight overexposure isn't too bad, but fine detail in clouds
is very important IMO so I try never to over-expose any part
of the sky. This often isn't possible if the sun is in the
picture though, as was the case with those two black and
white pics I just posted links to.

Your best chance of rescuing an over-exposed sky is if you
took the shot in raw mode. By reducing the contrast and the
exposure you can often claw back an extra stop of detail at
the bright end. I've been pleasantly surprised to discover
that certain shots that I thought were over-exposed actually
weren't. If they'd been saved as jpegs the sky would have
been unrecoverable.

Quoted message said:

This method can also be used from the bottom up if your
foreground is overexposed. The technique won't make a bad
image good, but it can rescue an 'almost' kind of pic.

Over-exposed foreground? Now that's a rarity (for me
anyway). If your foreground is over-exposed I dread to think
what will have happened to your sky. Due to my extreme
paranoia about over-exposure I usually get the opposite
problem, under-exposed foregrounds, which can be lightened
using pretty much the same technique.

It's usually far better to lose detail in the shadows than
in the highlights. The human eye is very sensitive to
highlight detail, but doesn't seem to mind black shadows so
much. Always better to underexpose rather than overexpose
IMO, if you a correct exposure isn't possible.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Depending on your definition, over-exposure can't really
be "rescued". It can be improved but if part of the sky
has gone completely white it'll stay that way, or be
reduced to a featureless grey. You can never recover
detail that's been lost.

Obviously. If the highlights are blown there is nothing
you can do. I was talking about situations where the shot
is not great because the sky is a little on the light
side - say half- to one-stop over. Generally, deeper
skies are much more popular on landscapes (with picture
buyers, for example).

Quoted message said:

Slight overexposure isn't too bad, but fine detail in
clouds is very important IMO so I try never to over-expose
any part of the sky. This often isn't possible if the sun
is in the picture though, as was the case with those two
black and white pics I just posted links to.

Graduated ND filters are used on virtually all my landscapes
to control the sky. In most situations the sky is brighter
than the land. If you have both in your picture you will not
be able to expose the whole frame perfectly unless the
brightness of the sky is reduced appropriately. Any
photographers serious about landscape photography who don't
use Grad ND filters should start a.s.a.p.

Quoted message said:

Over-exposed foreground? Now that's a rarity (for me
anyway).

Really?! When composing the various elements of a landscape
shot I often find the foreground can be anywhere from half-
to two-stops brighter than the rest of the frame. As such,
even when using 35mm, I spot meter every element within the
composition using a hand-held lightmeter. Some may say
that's overkill - I let the resulting images act as proof
that it is worth the extra time and effort.

Quoted message said:

If your foreground is over-exposed I dread to think what
will have happened to your sky.

In shots of mine where the foreground is slightly over-
exposed the sky (and the middle-ground) is perfect - the
shots were exposed to capture sky and middle-distance
perfectly - the overexposed foreground is a consequence of
that. In one particular shot I took of the Langdale Pikes I
was using 2 grad ND filters on the sky, so I couldn't use a
grad ND filter upside down to control the foreground (which
I often normally do), which was grass in bright sunlight.
When the slide was developed I was very happy with the image
- except for the foreground grass which was slightly too
bright (but I knew this would be the case). After scanning
the image I applied the 'digital ND grad' to it in photoshop
and the problem was sorted. I sent the digital file to one
of my photo libraries and since then the image has been used
in 2 calendars and on one book cover.

Quoted message said:

Due to my extreme paranoia about over-exposure I usually
get the opposite problem, under-exposed foregrounds, which
can be lightened using pretty much the same technique.

It's usually far better to lose detail in the shadows than
in the highlights. The human eye is very sensitive to
highlight detail, but doesn't seem to mind black shadows
so much. Always better to underexpose rather than
overexpose IMO, if you a correct exposure isn't possible.

I would say it is usually far better to expose correctly,
neither under- or over-exposing. However, scenes are rarely
uniformly illuminated. As such, the photographer must decide
what is the most important element of the shot and, as a
priority, ensure that element is exposed correctly (often at
the expense of over- or under-exposed elements elsewhere in
the frame). An example being the Langdales shot above. The
foreground grass was the least important element - I
'sacrificed' correct exposure here, knowing that it could be
rescued later in PS (provided it wasn't blown). And if it
was blown, I could still crop it out and have a saleable
panoramic image.

The method I oputlined above is for those situations where
you have had to sacrifice areas at the top or bottom of the
image - or quite simply when your exposure has been
slightly off-perfect but the image is not 'lost'. In either
case, the method wil only work if exposure is *slightly*
off being perfect.

Regards,

Michael S

Quoted message said:

Paul

Sorry interupt you photo pros but I have been away for a few
days and took some photos of a sunset. Trouble is the
foreground of the shot is very dark, is there anything I can
do to bring up that part of the shot - I have photoshop but
to be honest I have never used it - but since I bought my
digital camera I thought I might as well have a go??

Here are some of the shots I took.

groups.msn.comshoebox.msnwOpen ↗
oto&PhotoID=41

groups.msn.comshoebox.msnwOpen ↗
oto&PhotoID=43

groups.msn.comshoebox.msnwOpen ↗
oto&PhotoID=40

For the purposes of the newsgroup my *walk* was onto the
point at Worms Head. Weather was very nice this weekend so
took the chance to camp out in Port Eynon with wifey and
the youngest. Before we went yesterday I took a stroll up
Carn Y Cefn with the purposes of taking some shots - but
got halfway up the hill before I realised I had the camera
but the batteries were still on charge at home! ...oops, I
will learn.

AC said:

Sorry interupt you photo pros but I have been away for a
few days and took some photos of a sunset. Trouble is the
foreground of the shot is very dark, is there anything I
can do to bring up that part of the shot - I have photoshop
but to be honest I have never used it - but since I bought
my digital camera I thought I might as well have a go??

Here are some of the shots I took.

groups.msn.comshoebox.msnwOpen ↗
hoto&PhotoID=41

There are several ways to skin this cat.

A - Contrast Mask. See luminous-landscape.comunderstandingOpen ↗
series/u-contrast-masking.shtml

Layer > Duplicate layer.

Image > Adjust > Desaturate

Image > Adjust > Invert

On the Layers Pallette set layer style to "Overlay"

Filters > Blur > Gaussian Blur, radius 30 pixels.

Adjust the layer intensity on the layers pallette to taste,
in this case 80%

p-t-cook.freeserve.co.ukmasked.jpgOpen ↗

B - Modify the levels.

Image > Adjust > Levels >

Drag the centre point on the histogram towards the shadows
so that the input levels read 0 1.70 255.

p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uklevels.jpgOpen ↗
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"

AC <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Sorry interupt you photo pros but

No problem, so long as you don't let the subject of walking
creep in....
--
Gordon

"Gordon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

AC <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Sorry interupt you photo pros but

No problem, so long as you don't let the subject of
walking creep in....

Walking is OK so long as it's only for the purpose of
checking your GPS is working :-)
--
Mark South Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net <<Tiens!
Ce poulet a une grenade!

In article <[email hidden]>, Mark South
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Walking is OK so long as it's only for the purpose of
checking your GPS is working :-)

I thought it was a means of passing the time while you were
waiting for your rechargeables to discharge !
--
Bill Grey billboy.co.ukbillboy.co.ukOpen ↗

Mark South said:

Walking is OK so long as it's only for the purpose of
checking your GPS is working :-)

That's exactly what I use my walking for! I've been doing a
lot of GPS checking during the last week.

It seems to work, but I'll need to study the results in
Anquet and Ozi to be sure.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

"Michael S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

| > Over-exposed foreground? Now that's a rarity (for me
| > anyway).
|
| Really?! When composing the various elements of a
| landscape shot I often find the foreground can be anywhere
| from half- to two-stops brighter than the rest of the
| frame. As such, even when using 35mm, I spot meter every
| element within the composition using a hand-held
| lightmeter. Some may say that's overkill - I let the
| resulting images act as proof that it is worth the extra
| time and effort.

Hi Michael, I think I found your website, and you do have
some very nice images there indeed.

| >If your foreground is over-exposed I dread to think what
| >will have happened to your sky.
|
| In shots of mine where the foreground is slightly over-
| exposed the sky (and the middle-ground) is perfect - the
| shots were exposed to capture sky and middle-distance
| perfectly - the overexposed foreground is a consequence of
| that. In one particular shot I took of the Langdale Pikes
| I was using 2 grad ND filters on the sky, so I couldn't
| use a grad ND filter upside down to control the foreground
| (which I often normally do), which was grass in bright
| sunlight. When the slide was developed I was very happy
| with the image - except for the foreground grass which was
| slightly too bright (but I knew this would be the case).
| After scanning the image I applied the 'digital ND grad'
| to it in photoshop and the problem was sorted.

Are you talking about image JL105? I couldn't tell for sure
because there were no photographer's notes for this
particular image. It's a lovely scene though, and I agree
that you can't beat a deep blue sky (with white fluffy
clouds). I also liked VL029, and thought that you had used
an ND filter on this one too, but the photographers notes
say you only used a polarising filter.

| I sent the digital file to one of my photo libraries and
| since then the image has been used in 2 calendars and on
| one book cover.

There's quite a few people in this group who send their
images to photo libraries. I've noticed that quite a few
favour Alamy. Out of interest, do you have a preferred
agency at all Michael? Or found any to be more productive
for your work than others? (probably the same questions!)

A few months ago, I had the pleasure of seeing one of my
images used on the front cover of a book. However, you don't
find this book in all good bookshops, as it was for a
Romanian physics textbook! :-) The Professor found my photo
on the Internet, and I let him use it for free as I'm such a
kind guy. ;-)

<snip>

| Michael S
|
|
| > Paul

Regards,

Ste

Quoted message said:

Hi Michael, I think I found your website, and you do have
some very nice images there indeed.

Hi Ste, judging by the reference numbers you refer to
below, it seems as though you have indeed found the
website (or one of them, anyway - there are 2). Thanks for
the compliments - I'm glad you like them. One of the sites
(not the lake district one) is badly in need of a spring
clean, as it still has some very old and not very good
pictures on there!!!

Quoted message said:

Are you talking about image JL105? I couldn't tell for
sure because there were no photographer's notes for this
particular image. It's a lovely scene though, and I agree
that you can't beat a deep blue sky (with white fluffy
clouds). I also liked VL029, and thought that you had used
an ND filter on this one too, but the photographers notes
say you only used a polarising filter.

JL105 is a 'duplicate' of the image I am talking about...
You may have read the other thread about taking more than
one shot of a scene so you have a 'duplicate'. The actual
image used is very slightly different, but essentially the
same. VL029 was only a polariser IIRC. Sometimes the
polariser produces a grad ND effect, and sometimes when
combined with a drag ND it makes the sky too dark. I
probably did try some with a grad ND at the time though.

Out of interest, do

Quoted message said:

you have a preferred agency at all Michael? Or found any
to be more productive for your work than others? (probably
the same questions!)

Alamy has it's pros and cons. It is convenient in that it is
all 'electronic', so you can keep your slides and use them
for other things. Also, they don't require a minimum
submission of, say, 200 images (which many people do not
have - not good quality ones, anyway). However, this did
mean that virtually everyone was sending pics to them, and
the general quality of images was quite poor (I remember
seeing some *horrendous* pictures on Alamy over the years).
However, they have tried to improve the general quality by
making submission guidelines slightly tougher, so you must
at least have decent equipment to meet the criteria. Since
the quality on Alamy improved the sales have too. I don't
actually have many images with them (about 40-ish), but
that's only due to my own laziness. I will be submitting
more images to them soon. Considering the small number of
images I have with them my sales have been quite good. Other
agencies are springing up that are copying Alamy, and it
seems to be the way forward. As for other agencies, well,
the list is a long one (see the BAPLA website for a list).
The best method is to find an agency that best represents
your style or chosen photographic subject. For example, if
you take pictures of racing cars, you'd *probably* sell more
through an agency specialising in sports cars than you would
through a general agency like Alamy. However, do remember
that the stock photography market makes VERY few people
rich. Those that do make it work have literally thousands of
images with agencies.

Quoted message said:

A few months ago, I had the pleasure of seeing one of my
images used on the front cover of a book. However, you
don't find this book in all good bookshops, as it was for
a Romanian physics textbook! :-) The Professor found my
photo on the Internet, and I let him use it for free as
I'm such a kind guy. ;-)

Nice one! It's surprising the number of commercial requests
that come through personal websites (I've made more money
like this than I have from photo agencies, for example -
including supplying a marketing company with an image of
London to be used on billboards for an up-coming 20th
Century Fox film).

A lot of pro photographers dislike amateurs supplying images
for free (or very cheaply), but I personally have no
objections to this practice, as long as it's only done as a
means of getting a foot in the door, as it were. Once you
have a 'CV' of a few commercially-used images you can start
commanding a higher figure for licenses to use your photos!
Keep up the good work!

Regards,

Michael S

*After* posting my main reply I noticed I referred to a
'drag ND'... To avoid any confusion, this *IS* a typo, and
not some magical piece of photographic equipment! ;-)

Michael S