Moose wrote:
> Russ Butler wrote:
>> Here, for your (possible) viewing pleasure, are some shots from winter
>> at home in NJ and a car trip to the west coast and back this spring. All
>> were taken with an OM-1n and Tamron 28-200 171A except a 50/1.4 for the
>> portrait. I took other lenses along but never used them. (too lazy &/or
>> impatient). Fuji 400 film & scans from Costco (cheap). Clearly, attempts
>> at photography expose my character flaws :-)
>>
> Seems to me in this case it's mostly cheap scans that expose flaws. I
> think there are some terrific shots here, with interesting subjects and
> strong composition, hiding behind poor scans and/or post processing.
The scans are 'cheap' as noted and the software is outdated (photosle
3.0 a freebie with pagemaker in ~2001). What should be my first step?
Better software or scans?
>
> I hope you don't mind; I took the liberty of doing quick touch-ups of
> most of them, just to show what's hiding under the very flat scans
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/RussButler/index.htm>.
>
Mind? I appreciate your taking the time. Thanks.
> Russ Butler wrote:
>> Christos Stavrou wrote:
>>
>> There are some great compositions here...
>> (see for example: winter in NJ (the 1st), late March in AZ, Chinle, White
>> Sands, driving across )
>>
> And a couple of others.
>>> I especially like the monochromatic approach and restricted pallette of
>>> colours complimented by some minimalist approach of abstraction. An emphasis
>>> on shapes and space but avoiding extreme stylisation. The common
>>> characteristic, that I perceive with pleasure, is the search for expression,
>>> for a way to communicate the personal experience and subjective emotion.
>>>
>> Thank you very much for your kind words and taking the time to look at
>> the pictures. I was puzzled by your comment "monochromatic approach and
>> restricted pallette of colours" as that wasn't my conscious intention.
>> Then I looked them over and you are of course right, there's very little
>> color in most. I guess that pleased me when I selected the samples.
>>
> I generally prefer them with a little contrast, which also picks up the
> color. I didn't add any saturation. In the first, I only added a little
> local contrast enhancement. In the last one, I could make an argument
> for either the original or my version. I tend to go as far as I can when
> doing something like this, to see what's there to work with. In some
> cases, if they were my images my final version would probably be
> somewhere in between. In one like the Grand Canyon, I'd stick with the
> altered version.
>
I surely should have cropped the pic of my grandson, it's SO much
better. Only excuse is that I had many rolls to deal with and was in a
mindless kind of batch mode adjusting, resizing, & putting them into my
hand rolled html 'albums'. (http://nfs.nfshost.com/pics/PICS.HTM &
http://nfs.nfshost.com/pics/PICS2.HTM)
I tried to duplicate your Grand Canyon version but couldn't get it. What
did you do? That should help with my processing skills or software
upgrade decision.
Thanks again for looking and especially for taking the time,
Russ Butler
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|