Hey C.H.,
I certainly didn't mean to upset you.
C.H.Ling wrote:
>To me, there are two major reasons to take a photo, one is to capture
>beautiful objects and the other is to capture the moment, place or people
>that pass by me.
>
I certainly agree with those two. Here ,of course, I had neither the
advantage of memory to guide me nor the constraint of memory to keep me
from just looking for an image I liked.
For me, as I suspect for you, there is another category of pictures of
friends and family at various gatherings. Most are snapshots, and a few
better than that. Anyway, there is the people/memory aspect that I
value. In the case of these shots I'm pretty shameless about adjusting
them to get the shot I wanted, instead of the one I got. In this image
of one of my nephews and his fairly new to him, and entirely new to me
wife, they are ready for our sightseeing adventure. Fortunately, she got
car sick and had to come up and sit next to the driver, me. With 8 of us
in the car, it was pretty cozy - and she smelled better than the
youngest nephew who had been sitting next to me before. :-) ) Top is
the original shot and bottom is Photoshopped; now which do you think I
will send to them <http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/IMG_1125combo.jpg>?
They'll never notice the slight unreality, only that they look good. And
it will be part of what may be their last memory of their grandmother.
>In the second case I will try to retain the "look" that capture in my memory.
>
And that's generally what I do. It's also not all that uncommon for me
to take a shot in one light while the vision in my head is of the same
subject in a different light that won't be available while I and the
subject are together, but that I can imagine there at a different time,
or even season. In that case, I try to recreate what I saw in my mind
when I took the picture. And I also sometimes play a bit with other
shots to see what they might have looked like in different light.
> Actually, the shoot was taken in early morning
>(6:41am) and I didn't want to make big change to the original look.
>
Boy did I miss that, probably because occasions where I see the dawn are
very rare. I assumed it was taken looking West near dusk.
>I'm not experience in scenic but your adjustment doesn't look natural to me
>no matter it is morning or evening scene like this one:
>
Perhaps you can see what I was getting at when you see I thought the
building faced East, thus early dawn light would softly illuminate the
facade from the front.
In any case, I wasn't trying to make it particularly realistic,
especially the second one. I was following up on your comments about the
wider range of exposure data available from RAW files and your comment
about playing even with a JPEG, to make an example of how much detail
that appears lost in shadows can be brought forward.
>http://www.accura.com.hk/PC.jpg
>
>BTW, I think you should have a look on the checking target just like the
>grey bar in this page:
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse300/
>
Yes, I can see the separation of the last 2 boxes at either end, but we
probably just have different tastes in tonalities. Also, now looking
back at your original post, I see that the front of the building in
PB-Mer is noticably darker than in PB-Org. I like the facade in PB-Org
better, but its all a matter of taste and it's you image, so you get to
decide. I only played with it to demonstrate pulling up low tones.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
