The blue/black/gold/white discussion is really interesting. Like the
75%/25% discussion.
Of course, all this begs some questions about what this means for our
photography.
I mean, we calibrate our monitors, work hard on post-processing, etc., and
to what end?
Sure it makes us individually happy with our images, but what if no one
else sees it the same way we do?
Not to mention the effects of variations of our individual eyes/brains, etc.
Mild catalysts (ah, I obviously meant cataracts) come to mind. I?ve long
suspected that photo editors for the photo mags are older folks, with old
eyes and stages of cataracts etal, which lead them to favor photos with
brighter (even garish) colors. (There?s gotta be some reason for the
fetish-like bright reds and oranges on featured landscapes that they put on
covers and stories ?)
I?m reminded of the Musée de l'Orangerie with the very large Manet paintings
which (as I remember it) are quite blurred and not brightly colored ? but as
I recall, these were painted very late in his life, when his vision was very
compromised.
So we labor on, with great tools to affect (that is, post-process) our
images, not to mention the in-camera things we can do.
Again, film seemed so much easier without all the capabilities for modifying
the images we captured. It pretty much was what it was, though outstanding
lab technicians had tools and capabilities as well.
I guess the question really is ?so what.? I watch with interest folks in
our galleries picking the images that appeal to them. Composition of course
mostly matters. But coloration/contrast etc., I am willing to suggest, is
really a crapshoot in terms of what people actually ?see? and ?like.?
Bob
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|