Chris Barker wrote:
> Thanks, Moose.
>
> I shall be back to the birches before too long, but I took some 645
> photos (finishing a roll) on the same occasion and I shall look with
> interest to see whether I did any better with the composition with
> the different camera. [interesting to note that my Bronica RF645 felt
> almost diminutive after holding my E-1!]
>
> But what do I do with your web pages?
Mulch? Bird cage lining? I don't know. :-)
> Or were they just to consider under the general heading(s) of your final para?
>
Sure. I don't know if it's really productive, but I enjoy working with
other peoples photos. I like to think I learn things from it, as they
present subjects, problems, strengths and weaknesses different than what
I shoot, so I figure if I get into them, I learn how I might deal with
similar subject matter when I encounter it. Also, I think it helps me
develop my PS "muscles". But I wouldn't do it if it weren't fun.
So here I have alternate visions of various images other people have
originally created. Sometimes, there has been a specific question or I
have a specific point to make and I post a roll over or roll-overs to
highlight the points. Other times, I end up with a bunch of alternate
viewpoints about how an image could be.What to do with them? Sometimes
nothing. Sometimes I feel like posting them might be of help to the
creator in seeing something different, new, or at least different,
possibilities, maybe even, if I'm lucky, a way to improve their future
images to their own taste. And perhaps they will be of use to someone
else. Your image of the trees lining the river with sun behind I
wouldn't touch. The one of rows of them end on seemed murky to me; I
wanted to be able to discern more detail.
So I wandered through your site, loved some images just as they were,
and saw what seemed to be possibilities for improvement - to my taste,
of course - in others. I saw some beautiful stems that seemed lost a bit
in the background, an espalier that I liked sort of lost in the gloom,
a crooked manor house with a bland sky with hints of cloud detail, a
door in a wall with the stonework color and detail washed out, and
attempted to bring them out - you get the idea. And I'm generally
pleased with the results. For example, I like the way the mill stone
detail has sharpened/popped so that it stands out more clearly from the
background, and the way I was able to recover some texture detail from
the blown looking wood. To me, it's a super composition that is now
stronger without losing it's essential character.
If it weren't work, I would have made them all roll-overs. :-) Wander
through. If you don't like 'em, ignore 'em. If you hate 'em, ask me to
resist any future urges in the same direction with your images.
OK, I'll admit it, I'm an advocate for the position that people rely on
the camera and assume that's the best they are going to get to the
detriment of what they could do. Years ago, I was mightily impressed
when I viewed an early, straight print, or close to it, of Moonrise,
Hernandez, NM next to a "fully realized" version, essentially the one we
are all used to from published versions. It came to me then that the eye
to see the image and the technical skill to capture it are only the
first steps toward a great image. What happens in the darkroom, wet or
dry, makes or breaks it. I want to develop the skills to make that
difference - and encourage others to try it too.
I would, by the way, never have touched any of your images If I didn't
like them first.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|