>
> The tonalities in this version are *much* better, more highlight detail (I
> thought they may have been lost in the original exposure) and the shadow
> areas look more natural.
>
> What was done differently in coming up with this version ?
>
I'm looking at the picture this morning and I'm sorry to say that I think it
stinks. I never knew that "dry down compensation" was required with
digital. :( Oh, well, at least the highlights aren't blown.
Seriously, what is at issue now is the need for some dodging and burning or
possibly some LCE. In a darkroom I'd probably split-grade this image and
force more contrast into the foreground leaves. I was so careful not to
blow out the background like the first version was that the entire image is
a touch muddy. My style is to make sure that something in the print
"sparkles" and "snaps". I have the snap, but no sparkle. The foreground
leaves in the first version were exactly how I wanted them to look, but the
rest was a touch too high-key. Just a touch, though. In the darkroom, I
could have cured the entire print with about 1/4 stop increase in exposure.
But back to the original point--Digital B&W is tough to do. I have yet to
see any digital B&W print that had me convinced I was looking at a chemical
print. There is a "look" which screams digital. I was working hard to try
and not get the "digital look" in the on-screen version. In reality, the
first version was probably truer to a PanF picture than any of us are
willing to admit.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|