|
A good job, Mike, and it's really interesting to compare the two. I'd have to disagree with Ron. I think your image and your colour balance especially is a little more natural, closer to a visual image (it's considerably less blue on my monitor) and maybe a little smoother despite the artifacts you mentioned. A few bits that were saturated in the orginal have fared better too.
However overall I can't see specific detail that wasn't there in the original. In fact, to my eyes, the heightened colour contrasts in John's makes some fine features stand out a little more. Maybe it just comes down to visual judgement and personal taste - a question of aesthetics vs scientific data.
|