Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Moosa Culpa II Poppies

Subject: Re: [OM] Moosa Culpa II Poppies
From: Frank Wijsmuller <wijsmuller@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:18:42 +0200
Thanks Joel to step in.
I didn't feel very insulted (just a little ;-), and actually think Moose
comes close to the trainer of digital development on this list with his
constructive and elaborate 'moosifcations'. One of the benifits of
subscribing to this list for me is in learning, so I hope Moose will
continue his critiques and alternative moosifications.
Best, Frank.
PS Moose, can I send you my raw file to enable you to show what you mean?
;-)

2012/6/22 Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>

> On 6/21/2012 2:09 PM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012, at 04:46 PM, Moose wrote:
> >> On 6/18/2012 7:12 AM, Frank Wijsmuller wrote:
> >>> The sharpness is quite in contrast with this picture I 'painted'
> yesterday:
> >>>
> >>> <
> >>>
> https://plus.google.com/photos/103726771172069534440/albums/5755378292648844625?authkey=CNmAnvDDsJZX
> >> I love the idea, subject, composition, focus, bokeh ... The actual
> image,
> >> as posted, suffers from all sorts of ills, odd
> >> colors, mysterious borders, lost detail, etc., mostly related to initial
> >> exposure and/or post exposure processing of the
> >> highlights, red channel in particular.
> >>
> >> If the red channel is completely recoverable in Raw conversion, there is
> >> a wonderful image waiting to be revealed.
> > I see what you are getting at, and in part agree, but unless I had Frank
> > as a student in a class in which I had trained him to do one thing and
> > he had done another, I would never say his work "suffers from all sorts
> > of ills."  Not to be personal, but it strikes me as a little
> > inconsistent that you object to Ken's royal "we" but then share your
> > views as though they are objective truths rather than matters of taste.
> > I have no notion whatsoever that Frank's photo is not exactly what he
> > meant to do.  Do you?  If not, don't you need to know that before
> > assuming that he must really want it to look like your Platonic idea of
> > it?
>
> You're tough, caught me out again. If you look back at my posts giving
> opinions on images, you will see that they are
> peppered with, "... in my opinion ...", "... to my taste ..." and similar
> phrases.
>
> I don't know how emotionally you may get engaged with images. Sometimes I
> get perhaps overly engaged. With this one, I
> was so pulled between what I felt was almost a really first rate image and
> what felt to me like avoidable flaws that I
> had a hard time replying at all, or knowing what to say.
>
> I wanted to say how great I found it but for some technical shortcomings
> that, to me, keep it from its potential.
>
> In that process, I forgot to qualify my opinions. You, Frank and whomever
> else I may have upset have my apologies.
>
> I'll try to do better.
>
> Excuses Moose
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
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