> On 11/7/2011 4:11 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
> Agreed. That one stopped me. I wanted to like Luminous Arch better, but
> talk myself into it.<g>'
Moose (olymoosegmail.com) wrote:
> Those are the two that stood out to me. I though the Arch was getting a
> 'cause, Leica or not, it's pretty washed out and the shadows are too dark.
> But then I thought it might be unfair not to give the Baker an equal
> really perked up, so he's still the winner.
> I cropped this one for two reasons. It gets rid of distractions that
> anything for me. Cropping out the extraneous material allowed me to put
the rule of
> thirds point right on his brighter eye.
> As usual, if these versions seem overdone, imagine the in-between
version that meets
> your taste. :-) Gotta bring up the baker's hair for detail and shirt to
> flour on it, though;, even if nothing else.
> Messin' About Moose
I've been Moosed! Or is it Moostified? Thanks! You are farther into the
Gene Smith school of contrast than I am. Interestingly, I made a B&W
version of "Luminous Arch" that had similar contrast to your version, but
I preferred the color "au natural," so I didn't post the B&W. Your version
of the baker seems a bit overcooked to me, because to me the light
couldn't possibly be like that. But you did enhance his eyes, which are
the most striking feature of the shot. The crop is right on.
I have noticed that whenever I mess with curves, local contrast, etc, I
tend to go too far (for me), then back off a bit. And I like things a bit
less cooked than many. But maybe I am a little too much in love with
dynamic range. Your edits have shown me that while I wouldn't go as far as
your well-cooked, maybe I should go for medium rare.
--Peter (now where did I put that jar of potassium ferricyanide?)
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/