On 1/21/2011 9:58 PM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
> Thanks Moose, you are right, I should do some work on the image.
Glad to be of assistance!
On 1/22/2011 5:29 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I didn't comment on the original because I found the stark contrast between
> shadowed subject and blown background hard on my eyes. I literally had a
> hard time viewing it. Consequently, I heartily approve of the Moosterized
> version. As with some things Moosterized they may go a bit too far. This
> may qualify as one of those but I'm unsure having to view it on the Krappy
> Kolor laptop.
Glad you liked it! I often go at least a bit farther than others might,
probably farther than I would go for final
display. Especially when working on something requiring considerable work, I
like to find the outside edge of what can
be done with it without gettin' weird or falling apart. One may always imagine
something less, whereas it's perhaps
harder to imagine more from a conservative example.
In this case, the contrast between the original and revision was so great that
I could hardly stand to view a rollover,
which is why I didn't show it that way.
On 1/23/2011 5:53 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
> Liked the original, like this one mucho better.
Thanks Bob!
On 1/23/2011 4:52 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> I am going to go against the flow here. I actually like the original better,
> because it places the subject within an environment. This environment, which
> is somewhat masked by the blown out highlights as well as the
> out-of-focusness, draws me in wanting to study and understand the setting,
> but not explore it too deeply. This careful
> balancing act of environment and mystery brings me back to the main subject.
I may surprise you by largely agreeing with you. The subject and composition
are interesting, and do put him in a
specific context. 'Twere mine, I would still bring him up some, and the bright
background down, although certainly not
as much as I did. As with Chuck, I find it hard to really see the man, so dark
against the bright background. Some of
that may be simple brightness of our different screens. I color profile mine
and set brightness where all the steps of
those B&W steps are as visible as possible and balanced around the center, but
I'm not sure that's a guarantee.
> The cropped, processed version dictates the viewing too much. As a portrait,
> the Moosified version is better.
Thanks, as that was the intent of my exercise. I always like a challenge, and
the high contrast and deeply shadowed face
intrigued me. But what got me going was Nathan's comment on how hard it is to
get a picture of his F-I-L. A F-I-L I much
loved died a few years ago, and I am so very glad that I caught a many good
shots of him, including a couple of portrait
style. My parents are both dead, and I'm both glad to have decent portraits of
them and with I had a couple more. When
they're gone, they're gone.
So when I saw in this image the potential for a pretty nice portrait through
post and cropping, I felt I had to mention
the possibility to Nathan and aid imagination with an imperfect, but indicative
example.
> But in the format of the informal portrait, I prefer the original.
Yup, as above.
Manipulative Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|