Nicely put, Moose.
But, although I admire your technical expertise in your
Moosification(s), I can't help feeling that "What Moose would do" is
again too harsh. I recognise, of course, that you are free to enjoy
your own expression or interpretation, but as a rule I prefer the
tonal softness of the original. I enjoy the adjusted tonality of
highlight or shadow, but the last one is just too "edgy" (I can't
think of another word to describe how I feel about it).
Chris
On 18 Feb 2009, at 00:20, Moose wrote:
> Thanks for the samples. I think the last three effects should be
> labeled
> "Lurid", "Lomo" and "Crap"
>
> As for the normal shots, other than the apparent colour cast in the
> first few, the only problem I see is in the highlight and shadow
> compression. It's most obvious in Trunk, but also compromising the
> highlights in Rock-Limb and Kangaroo-Apple.
>
> I appreciate the problems facing the designers in trying to retain
> some
> highlight and shadow detail while still having the midtone contrast
> that
> gives images 'pop', all in an 8 bit file. And Oly took the high road
> of
> compressing, rather than simply clipping.
>
> Still, I can so easily imagine the new owner looking at Trunk and
> concluding that a three shot bracket and HDR are necessary to capture
> the whole dynamic range of the subject.
>
> Not so, even from the JPEG.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Fildes/Trunk.htm>
>
> I suppose someday in-camera processors will make adjustments by area
> to
> retain more tonal detail. For now, it's RAW for me.
>
> Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|