Moose wrote:
> Not better, but certainly a different feeling. And a poster
> image for my
> argument that most filters aren't needed for digital.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wajsman/43.htm>
The modified image is definitely in the "West Coast" vein. Not evil by any
means, but losing a bit of sublety and mood that I feel in the original.
However, that said... There are several "rules" regarding B&W photographs. One
particular "rule" is to define your boundaries. These boundaries provide visual
points of reference. B&W is "abstract" by its very nature. Abstract works
require points of reference otherwise your brain is stuck in "what is it?" mode.
What then would be an adequate visual boundary or point of reference?
Typically in B&W, that would be an anchoring white and an anchoring black
somewhere within the photograph. In the original, there is neither. However,
in Moose's modification, I feel that he stretched the contrast a touch too far
and lost the sublety in the midtone gradients. I would have rather seen the
outer levels stretched and the midtones kept more intact. This would have
provided the "boundaries" yet kept the moodiness in the photo.
But this is just my opinion.
AG
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|