At 3/27/2021 09:34 PM, Moose wrote:
>On 2/27/2021 6:59 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
>>At 2/26/2021 11:27 PM, Floral wrote:
>>>One indoors.<https://photos.app.goo.gl/4ysWY4bGaoiFn9aBA>
>>>
>>>Two outdoors.<https://photos.app.goo.gl/HPuD2xVpWZXBAAWU8>
>>>
>>>And<https://photos.app.goo.gl/t6K4P8phUCuv5BhT9>
>>>
>>>Floral Moose
>>All great shots.
>
>Thanks!
>
>>I have noticed recently that, to my eye, your photos have a darker sort of
>>tint. I'm curious, are you shooting these with -1 or -2 EV?
>
>Since almost the beginning of my use of digicams, my default for daylight is
>-2/3 EV. But that's not really what you are responding to..
>
>>or possibly difference in monitor calibration? or just post settings used?
>
>Yup, post. It seems to me that there are always at least three versions of any
>subject.
>
>The way it looked to me (or looks to me in memory.)
>The way it looked to the camera, as converted from Raw with defaults.
>The way it feels to me.
>The way I hope will convey to others how it feels to me
>
>
>Lets take the Grape Hyacinths. At least with sun, from anywhere in the garden,
>even 20 ft. away, the blue stands out against all the greens, browns, etc.
>Yet, as it comes out of LR/ACR, the blue is muted, and tends to get lost in
>the other details.
>
>So, I selected the flowers and applied LCE and Curves to them, which brightens
>them up a lot. Rather than go further in that direction, but still wanting
>more separation from background, I lowered brightness and contrast in the rest
>of the image.
>
>The end result captures something in the direction of the way they felt to me,
>and I hope, not too far from the way they look to me. They are still there, so
>I've checked.
>
>This approach is pretty common to my photos of objects like these. I also not
>uncommonly selectively blur the background. (And was doing it before iPhones
>did it.ð??? )
>
>Here's the other Hyacinth, showing steps. #2 is really hard to see any
>difference. I include it both because of our recent posts and because it's
>important to the last step, to avoid grainy/artifacty stuff.
><http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Background%20Blur/Hyacinth.htm>
>
>Another step-by-step, from Wednesday. Although it caught my eye, the straight
>out of camera photo is pretty blah. The optical or cognitive DoF of my visual
>system doesn't see it like that; the background just isn't part of what I see,
>unless I think about it.
><http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Background%20Blur/5TinyCones.htm>
>
>Selectively Fuzzy Moose
Another great Moose demo.
I am not sure what SHi means? Do you ever use Topaz Studio 2 for any
adjustments?
I noticed you said "I checked".
An interesting topic is Reconstructive memory. I have fallible memory.
WayneS
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|