I'm very surprised to see how much difference the tonal redistribution
(I think I'd call it correction) makes to my impression of the image.
ps: How is it that you occasionally get these erroneous gmail links
stuck in place of the proper link?
Chuck Norcutt
On 6/12/2012 6:06 AM, Moose wrote:
> On 6/8/2012 8:32 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>>> Here it is perspective corrected. I'm not sure I like it as much, it seems
>>> too static, while the non-corrected one seems to draw you in down the
>>> street between the buildings. What do you think? The old version is still
>>> online, this is a new link.
>> The straightened one needs a different crop. Straightened up, the sky
>> becomes too dominant in the picture and fights the subject for
>> attention. Oh well, no winning on this one.
>
> I'm not sure. I think the problem is that Chris' signature style* of high
> contrast suppresses highlight and shadow
> detail. With the visual attraction/distraction of the unsquare forms
> 'corrected', there just isn't much for the eye to
> engage with.
>
> Changing the tonal distribution to bring up detail in the building surfaces
> improves the corrected version a lot, to my
> eye.<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Crawford/ward-corp2.htm>
>
> Better or worse than the original, I leave to your taste. Personally, the
> high contrast style works well with some
> subjects and not as well with others.
>
> I think some of the dolls series suffer from lost detail in the dolls from
> the same cause. But as one immune to the
> horror factor, I may be missing
> something.<cid:part2.06080005.03020109@gmail.com>
>
> Tonality Moose
>
> * At least on the web. I've not seen any prints.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|