I have been experimenting with two points of view with these things
because, like Moose, I like to play with other people's pictures
sometimes. It is very instructive and you learn some Photoshop skills
along with it and it is just fun. The feedback when I have shared is
similar to your response to Moose. It did not look like that.
I have been thinking about that and realized that perhaps it is good
to not have been there and to see what is the most esthetically
pleasing interpretation you can make with what you have. I have
tended to use the representation of the way it looked, within the
limits of cameras and film, as a goal too. But lately I have been
trying to occasionally take a file of my own and try to pretend I was
not there and see what I can make of it "in the here and now". My old
habit is hard to break out of, but I think my images are improving as
a result. Certainly dear old Ansel was not concerned with how it
looked so much as how well he "performed" the negative "score". That
is one reason so many people shoot raw in a manner so as to capture
all the information possible rather than worrying how great the jpeg
looks out of the camera. Ansel did the more difficult thing of
adjusting his exposure of film anticipating how he would develop to
get the range of values he previsualized. Moose is ahead of most of
us in this, I think.
I just thought of a picture I took for a Japanese gentleman I met in
Heroshima who proposed to take my picture and send me a print if I
would send him a print of where I lived in the US. The image was of
the Queen Mary where it is permanently fasted in Long Beach and
because of the lens perspective and the distance it loomed over the
viewer. It did not really look like that. Just standard photographic
alteration of reality for effect. We do it all the time. It could be
argued that altering reality in post processing for effect is no
different than altering in the camera. I realize you said that you
will do different things in processing depending on how it strikes
you. I am just talking out, so to speak, for anyone that really feels
constrained by what they saw.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Jan 11, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Martyn Smoothy wrote:
>
> Moose,
>
> Pleased you found some of the pics interesting enough to warrant your
> attention. Just a couple of points...
>
> Most of the scans were manipulated to some extent in PS to bring
> out a bit
> more shadow detail, but I think you generally go farther than I
> usually do
> with this. For instance, I feel you've overdone it with #11 - the
> facade is
> far brighter than it actually looked as I recall. On the other
> hand, your
> version of #47 does bring out more detail. Just a matter of taste I
> suppose.
>
> When it comes to distorted perspective I usually leave well alone -
> all
> these were shot with the 21mm f3.5 & the "distortion" comes with the
> territory. Sometimes it works & sometimes it doesn't... often I
> quite like
> it. Have to admit to being a bit inconsistent here - I did alter the
> perspective on 2 of the images, #41 & #48, both church facades
> taken square
> on (you can see the original of #41 here -
> http://archaeoimages.com/tmp/Venice-41-S_Giorgio_Maggiore-
> orig.jpg). In both
> cases I should probably have used a different lens....
>
> In any case thanks for the feedback, a fresh "perspective" is always
> valuable :-)
>
> Regards - Martyn
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|