Thanks for the offer & the advice Doug. Yes, PSP does have a "levels"
option. I have not played around with it yet, I have been using "curve"
adjustment to get a lighter or darker image.

Here is a list of what I do to get to my final image. Photoshop probably
has all the equivalents, & some of the stuff I do I don't really
understand what it is!
1- Highlight mid-tone & shadow
2- Curve adjustment
3- Clarify
4- Hue & Saturation adjustment
5- Resize
6- Sharpen
7- Add borders & save!

I have noticed that I always seem to lean towards a darker image, don't
know why, probably just me!

Promise?

Great pics so far! Glad we could swap "Rainbows"!

Wow. Big difference,eh? I'm gonna have to start mucking around with a
few more settings! :-)

I wonder if the great "contributor"
and "helper of beginners", whatshisname
Brett-the-troll-Douglas, is reading
this? He might learn what providing
information is all about.  Ah well,
who cares?

Yes, but why?

The original shows a bunny standing in the cool shade in his hutch (?)
striking a cute pose.

The "improved" version has completely lost that feeling of coolness, or
shade. It is arguably(?) a better "studio" or "technical" result, but has
lost the ambience of the original. The fence (hutch wall?) in the background
has lost its "background" status and has jumped into the foreground, using
its enhanced contrast and detail to fight for supremacy with the subject
bunny.  The overall composition isn't improved when the background is made
distractingly obvious.  My monitor and PS both suggest there is detail loss
on bunny's head.

"Improvements" should not be made without first giving a bit of thought to
the subject matter, and to the _feeling_ of the image.

Whilst it may be argued (and I wouldn't agree) that the second image shows
some technical improvements, I still prefer the original.

Heaven protect us all from the day when all photographs exhibit ideal
dynamic range, perfect colour/tone contrast, enhanced saturation and
pin-sharp resolution (albeit surrounded by haloes).

=======

Another case in point; Max Dupain's "Sunbather".

First, it's difficult to find a faithful depiction of this icon of Aussie
photography on the net.

Witness:

http://www.art-galleries-schubert.com.au/www/dupain/Sunbather.htm
marketed as an "art" print yet (at least online) reduced to an insulting
blancmange of grey slop.  I hope the actual print is a lot better.

--or--

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20895457-2,00.html
with contrast bumped up so high that half the shot is burned out.  I imagine
Max would be rolling in his grave.

I'm guessing (but cannot verify) that the original is halfway between the
two, neither muddy nor burnt out.

The Moral?

Unless you're producing a catalogue or a textbook, go easy on the PS magic.
Maybe the original would be better off left as is.  The bunny would be.

As I look out of the window at my garden, I see deep shaded areas punctuated
by dappled, yet bright spots of unattenuated sunlight.  To my eyes, the
bright bits are washed out and completely detail-free. (I imagine I see
little dialog boxes saying [255,255,255] floating around them)  Are my eyes
faulty?  Would a HDR composite image of my backyard be a more faithful, or
"true-to-life" depiction of what I am seeing?

Photoshop is a very powerful and easy-to-use imaging tool.  Its even easier
to *overuse* it in an attempt to boost the WOW factor.  Determining when to
back off and leave well enough alone is a difficult to acquire skill, yet it
is infinitely more valuable than just knowing how to slide a slider to the
right.

A little learning is a dangerous thing.

--
Jeff R.