Actually, the B&W was set to simulate one or another kinds of film. At this
point, I'm not sure which because I didn't jump through all the smart-object
hoops to be able to reload it in SFx and see. It looks nice as a print, better
than on screen, but it's definitely not for everyone. I'll put one print out
somewhere--probably a mid-sized one in the 10x15 image-size range, and wait for
the right person to see it.
One of my discoveries since beginning to sell images to the general public
rather than to specific customers is that tastes _really_ range across all
spectrums. My early mistake was in believing that there would be more than a
few people who liked any photo I liked, and therefore I would saturate all my
venues with each image. That turned out not to be the case. Sometimes an image
doesn't speak to that many people, but when it does, it _really_ does, and they
won't be stopped. I still believe that if I like an image, someone else will
like it enough to buy it, and by and large, I'm right. It's images I put out
that I don't really like but which I believe will find a market that more than
often do not find a market. Funny how that works. <g>
I'll post another B&W today sometime. It was one of those iffy, high-grain jobs
that I really liked but which languished in smaller sizes. But I had a large
one on the wall at a local restaurant, and a guy called me, said he wanted it,
and how could he get it. I resisted the urge to be a smart ass and tell him
just to take it off the wall at the restaurant, and instead told him to drop by
the gallery at his convenience and I would have it there for him. He came over
next morning, picked up the print, handed me a credit card, and was out the
door in five minutes. He saw it, liked it, and bought it. (Wasn't a problem
with the restaurant because they don't charge me commission.) Since then I've
sold several large versions on the print.
I'll try the reduced saturation trick on the HDR image and see how it looks. It
occurs to me it might benefit from just a touch of blur, also known as glow,
that won't reduce the sharpness but might take another bit off the HDR effect.
Thanks for looking!
--Bob
On Jan 9, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I like all 3 of them up there although I think the B&W conversion and
> what I assume is simulated grain looks just a bit strange. I assume the
> reduced resolution has done it no favors. The Pemaquid shot is very
> pretty but, I agree, the HDR treatment is evident. But I'll bet you
> could drop the saturation just slightly while still leaving a beautiful
> print that's not obviously HDR.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|