Very well done. Particularly New Red.
—Bob Whitmire
Certified Neanderthal
On Jun 4, 2015, at 2:00 AM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 5/31/2015 1:45 PM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
>> I’m not a flower taker,
>
> Ah, but I am, and Mike @ TOP has given me the rationales I need to continue.
> :-)
> <http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/06/three-good-ways-to-avoid-clich%C3%A9s.html>
>
> I offer a few from our garden Sun. and Tues.
> <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=17395>
>
> There IS a fly in the ointment, but you have to take a look to see it. :-)
>
> The accompanying rant goes like this.
>
> I see over and over lovely flower subjects/compositions taken in bright light
> with highlights blown badly enough that detail is lost and colors go off.
>
> I see over and over lovely flower subjects/compositions taken in open shade,
> overcast, etc. Often with the comment how the soft light made it possible to
> get the shot that wouldn't be possible in direct sun.
>
> People rattle on about how one day we'll have cameras with the DR to capture
> such subjects.
>
> The trouble with all that is that things look different in different light.
> Flowers ever so subtly captured in soft light are bloodless, like a date with
> your maiden aunt.* Flowers seen in sun are brazen, passionate, exciting.
> That's what I want to capture!
>
> And it's just not that difficult. Those above were all taken with a tiny
> sensor P&S. Yet, no blown highlights, with bright, 'real' colors. And some of
> the feeling of seeing them in person lingers in the images.
>
> As with so much of photography, technique is as of more important than
> equipment.
>
> Moose D'Opinion
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|