Moose grunted:
> It is, to my mind, a superior image, in two different ways:
> First, the pose is much better..
I somewhat agree. The pose is better, but as she is looking towards the
door, the door becomes the subject. As wall art, I think I prefer the
first, but either one are far better than anything I can get. I would like
to see both processed the same way, but honestly, absent a comparative,
both are excellent.
> Second, efx has done terrible things to the surface detail/texture of the
door...
I'm wondering if this is more a function of how the JPEG engine has trashed
those particular tones. With the stretching of the contrast curve like
this, the JPEG engine is going to choke on these types of textures with
those contrasts.
> I'm not sure what efx is supposed to do, but it has gone far beyond
adjusting tonal curves to match a film look. I don't see why one would want
such harsh contrast and surfaces for such a tender subject.
This might be where we could be parting ways in our thinking. The first
image has a distinct museum look to it. The second has a more literal look.
Maybe backing off a little bit, but throwing some localized
contrast/brightness adjustment in a few spots to give the image the snap it
needs. I fear that if Tina did that, though, it could end up with an
overcooked photoshop look.
This is the kind of picture that I'd love to have a negative of in order to
darkroom print it with the densities and contrasts of the first one with
the subtle tonalities in the skin and highlights that can be pulled out
with split-grade printing.
Tina, this COULD be done. Digital file to a inkjet contact negative, then
darkroom printed on AgX-Fiber with a heavy dose of selenium and coffee
toning.
Yum.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|