Tina sent us this
>
> PESO:
>
> I am always torn between the two. To me, color is such a part of the
> people of Guatemala that it is almost a sacrilege to eliminate their color.
> Not so at all in Honduras or some other countries I've been to. I took10
> times as many color photos in Guatemala as in Honduras. In this case,
> somebody on the MUG suggested this photo is more of a character study in
> B&W. I aree that it's more of a character study, but which is more true
> documentation? Is it ok to remove their color when it is so important to
> them? I really don't know.
For what it's worth my opinion is that I would not reduce the colour
saturation and vibrance (as LR apparently calls it) one jot from the reality.
Goodness knows, many lives need lightening up. Business-women here all
(nearly all) wear BLACK as some kind of working feminine uniform. Ugh.
I do know one woman lawyer who wears light grey - but unfortunately that
doesn't suit her colouring because it makes her look drab. but at least she's
not in black.
I might even have guess that the women with cataracts shot had the
saturation reduced.
The colour of my last rose photo seems almost unreal. However, that's how
it was in side light at the end of the day. I *could* have desaturated it -
but
then a good deal of the whole point of the photo would have been lost - so
why do it?
I don't quite know what to make of the B&W images. I suspect they need
more contrast.
It seems that LR4 does a good job for you. My impression of the first shot(s)
of Mauricio is that they deserve sharpening, however.
I see that LR4 is almost affordable in New Zealand. But I have so many
priorities lined up for my scarce dollars that FastStone it will have to be for
a
while yet.
Brian Swale
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|