Andrew Fildes wrote:
> Not really trying to wind you up. Well...
> I think the point I'm trying to make is that we
"What you mean we, white man?"
Tonto
> get very anal about accurate colour representation when, sometimes, it'd be
> better to go for effect.
Sorry, you won't get me to categorically disagree. But lemme see if I
can string this along.
I often take an image with the express intent of creating what I see in
it, as opposed to exactly what I see looking at it. That sort of going
for effect seems to me to be pretty mainstream. It's certainly at the
base of Ansel Adams famous work. I've seen the 'pure' unaltered versions
of a couple against the finished prints.
Looking at the images for sale in shops and galleries and the samples
from many pros who sell on the web, it's clear that most are not simply
as they appeared from the camera. But most are pretty close to
recreating the visual-emotional feeling one might feel when viewing the
subject under ideal conditions.
> Frankly, the world is a bit dull at times so I don't always want to get it
> that accurate. I'll leave that to the guys shooting clothing for catalogues -
> they're the most nervous about it I believe.
>
I don't disagree with that either. Now you get into the area of artistic
creation, and things do get trickier. The simple discussion about
whether something looks natural or not morphs into much fuzzier
territory of differing likes and dislikes.
> The pic of the cafe may well be spot on - but it would be more fun
> oversaturated.
> For me anyway.
>
Just for you.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous&image=575_10rotcrex.jpg>
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
