Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Peer Review, was E-30

Subject: Re: [OM] Peer Review, was E-30
From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:06:20 +0000
Thanks for those thoughts, Ken.

I remember, now and then, that the light is different over there from  
over here.  I spent just over 2 years in Florida after 2 years in  
Germany and my photographs showed the difference.  After a while I  
realised that I was trying to recall the softness of European light  
while photographing in harsh sub-tropical sunlight; your point is well  
made, Ken.

I made a similar comment about Moose's mountains, but it's just a  
matter of perception, different monitors and preference.

And I agree, there was a hint of over-analysis of your mono image.

Chris

On 18 Feb 2009, at 16:27, Ken Norton wrote:

> There is a distinct "California Look" of which Moose is definitely a
> purveyer of. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this look, but I'm
> reminded that South Western American artworks don't sell well in  
> Iowa and
> Iowa artworks wouldn't sell well in Sante Fe.  Much of this has to  
> do with
> quality of natural daylight where we all live.  For instance,  
> throughout
> much of the American West, there is little to no haze (or even
> cloud-cover).  There is an edginess and contrast to the natural  
> landscape
> which isn't present in the Eastern States, nor in the Brittish  
> Isles. It
> would be extremely wrong to apply the "California Look" to a foggy  
> moody
> scene.  And it would be also extremely wrong to apply a soft, mid- 
> tone only
> contrasting to an image of our American West.  It just doesn't fit.
>
> Back to my B&W image, I purposefully blew out the background because I
> didn't want the background to contain visual information to compete  
> with the
> building and foreground vegitation. This was absolutely my artistic  
> intent.
> Unfortunately, instead of accepting this artistic intent and  
> allowing the
> eyes to study the rest of the scene, we hyper-analyzed the  
> photograph for
> the fact that it contained a "technical flaw" based on "modern  
> dynamic-range
> think".  How is this any different than Ansel Adams' "Monolith"  
> which has a
> blacked out sky?  Shall we criticize AA because the sky went too  
> dark and
> indicated a "flaw" in the expression of proper dynamic range?

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

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