On 11/11/2011 10:11 AM, Peter Klein wrote:
>> 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 show the flour on it, though;, even if nothing else.
> Messin' About Moose
> I've been Moosed! Or is it Moostified?
The common term in usage is Moosified, I believe. ;-)
> Thanks! You are farther into the Gene Smith school of contrast than I am.
Well, I don't tend to make big areas fade completely to black. But then maybe
he didn't either. All I can recall seeing
are smallish web images. Hmm, I wonder if I have a couple in some book or other.
In general I would differ, as I lowered contrast and/or raised shadows in at
least the area above the arch and the
baker's hair and shirt, and held the shadow detail that was already there.
Increased local contrast? Guilty!
> 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.
Ah yes, but only you and anyone else who was there would know that! A pro
taking it as a portrait might well have used a
reflector or fill flash to light his face. Luckily, there was actually light
shining that way; I didn't create it, just
'enhanced it'. :-)
As journalism, I ruined it. As portrait, I improved it - at least to my taste!
> But you did enhance his eyes, which are the most striking feature of the shot.
Shades of Steve McCurry! :-P
> The crop is right on.
Thanks! I do think it removes distractions.
> 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.
Yup, for my own use, I tend to work on an image, then leave it for a while, to
see how it feels to me, then as often as
not, back it off some. I sometimes even do that with images I've already put up
in a gallery, so it may differ after I
first post the link.
> 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.
A couple of times, I've looked for a way to put a slider in place of my
roll-overs, but haven't found the easy way that
won't damage my brain as yet. As I often say in posting them, I consider them
to be the limits of what may possibly be
considered an improvement by others, and I expect many would prefer something
I think of it as showing the boundaries of the possible, so as perhaps to open
up possibilities for viewers.
A. Tendentious Moose
> --Peter (now where did I put that jar of potassium ferricyanide?)
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/