Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Holiday snaps...

Subject: [OM] Re: Holiday snaps...
From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:49:13 -0800
I have been experimenting with two points of view with these things  
because, like Moose, I like to play with other people's pictures  
sometimes. It is very instructive and you learn some Photoshop skills  
along with it and it is just fun. The feedback when I have shared is  
similar to your response to Moose. It did not look like that.

I have been thinking about that and realized that perhaps it is good  
to not have been there and to see what is the most esthetically  
pleasing interpretation you can make with what you have. I have  
tended to use the representation of the way it looked, within the  
limits of cameras and film,  as a goal too. But lately I have been  
trying to occasionally take a file of my own and try to pretend I was  
not there and see what I can make of it "in the here and now". My old  
habit is hard to break out of, but I think my images are improving as  
a result. Certainly dear old Ansel was not concerned with how it  
looked so much as how well he "performed" the negative "score". That  
is one reason so many people shoot raw in a manner so as to capture  
all the information possible rather than worrying how great the jpeg  
looks out of the camera.  Ansel did the more difficult thing of  
adjusting his exposure of film anticipating how he would develop to  
get the range of values he previsualized.  Moose is ahead of most of  
us in this, I think.

I just thought of a picture I took for a Japanese gentleman I met in  
Heroshima who proposed to take my picture and send me a print if I  
would send him a print of where I lived in the US. The image was of  
the Queen Mary where it is permanently fasted in Long Beach and  
because of the lens perspective and the distance it loomed over the  
viewer.  It did not really look like that. Just standard photographic  
alteration of reality for effect. We do it all the time. It could be  
argued that altering reality in post processing for effect is no  
different than altering in the camera. I realize you said that you  
will do different things in processing depending on how it strikes  
you. I am just talking out, so to speak, for anyone that really feels  
constrained by what they saw.



Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA




On Jan 11, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Martyn Smoothy wrote:

>
> Moose,
>
> Pleased you found some of the pics interesting enough to warrant your
> attention. Just a couple of points...
>
> Most of the scans were manipulated to some extent in PS to bring  
> out a bit
> more shadow detail, but I think you generally go farther than I  
> usually do
> with this. For instance, I feel you've overdone it with #11 - the  
> facade is
> far brighter than it actually looked as I recall. On the other  
> hand, your
> version of #47 does bring out more detail. Just a matter of taste I  
> suppose.
>
> When it comes to distorted perspective I usually leave well alone -  
> all
> these were shot with the 21mm f3.5 & the "distortion" comes with the
> territory. Sometimes it works & sometimes it doesn't... often I  
> quite like
> it. Have to admit to being a bit inconsistent here - I did alter the
> perspective on 2 of the images, #41 & #48, both church facades  
> taken square
> on (you can see the original of #41 here -
> http://archaeoimages.com/tmp/Venice-41-S_Giorgio_Maggiore- 
> orig.jpg). In both
> cases I should probably have used a different lens....
>
> In any case thanks for the feedback, a fresh "perspective" is always
> valuable :-)
>
> Regards - Martyn



==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz