Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> But the self-designated saturation cop says you went just a tad too far
> on the sky. :-)
>
Chuck Norcutt wrote on the subject "another sunrise":
> Somehow I missed this one first time around. I also like this one a
> lot. It handily passes the saturation cop's scrutinizing eye.
>
You've hit on a difference on my approach to my own images to showing
alternative views of posted images.
With my images, I am usually looking for something I'd be happy to see
as a good sized print on the wall. Unlike AG, I'm not always patient
enough to wait and see how a particular version wears with some time. I
tend to just post it, sometimes to realize later that a subtler approach
is more to my long term liking. And of course, I'm sometimes called to
task and forced to review sooner rather than later by the saturation
cop. :-)
Fortunately, I still get excited by images and can get carried away in
the excitement. I don't think I'll apologize for that. ;-)
When "Mooseterizing" I tend to go further toward the limit. As an
exercise, it shows how much can be done, found, enhanced. Displayed as
they are as roll overs of the original, I hope it's easy for the viewer
to imagine their own perfect level somewhere between the images shown.
I also usually find it easier to be subtle when working with the
original, full size file.
In this case, though, I'm not sure I agree (Shades of Yosemite Valley!).
#207 is the same sky, and I'll bet not far apart in time, so I don't
think I'm far off, but I wouldn't mind it backed off just a tiny bit.
What fascinated me is all the lost foliage that came forward. I don't
recall seeing such a large effect like that before. Trees magically
filling out. I'm going to take more care when selecting sky with trees
in the future. I think I may have missed some opportunities.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|