Johnny Johnson wrote:
> At 10:47 PM 9/14/2006, Moose wrote:
>> posted two of these a little while ago
>> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net//Yosemite2ip/Foothiills/>.
>>
> Well, I also find the colors and contrast to be pleasing, most
> especially in numbers 1, 2, & 4.
Thanks!
> And, they don't look over sharpened
> to me. But, numbers 3 & 5, at least on my monitor, are too dark for
> my tastes - especially the last one. Of course, I can't speak for
> how accurately they represent the scenes.
I think they are pretty good representations of the subjects. On my
Monaco calibrated monitors, there is a lot of shadow detail throughout
the darker areas of #3, although small spots go completely dark. In #5,
I can see detail of the shape and texture of the entire surface of the
hillside. It was of course, shot for the silhouettes of the trees on top
of the hills.
As one who has pulled up shadow detail in images from so many others, I
was well aware of the potential to do that with these. I seem to recall
doing so very subtly on at least #5 to try to reproduce the memory I
have of the subject. With the direction of the light so obvious, I don't
think much more bringing up of the shadows would look natural; sort of
like that Adorama tutorial on using masks, where the barn in shadow
somehow ended up brighter than the mountains in direct sun.
> It looks a lot like Velvia to me, which is my favorite film.
>
I've never used Velvia. Not sure exactly why. In any case, these shots
should in theory look just the same with it, assuming that, as with the
Portra, I had used an icc profile.
Thanks for looking and the comments.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|