On 8/11/06, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> When I first looked at it my instant thought was that this does
> not look real. Although the foreground contrast and color diversity has
> been enhanced [...] there has been a very significant loss in sky brightness
> (and to my eye) accuracy of sky color. The net effect strikes me as
> very unreal and I believe the reason is that the sky has become less
> bright than the opened up highlights in the mountains. The sky (the
> light source) simply isn't bright enough to light the ground.
>
> [...] I personally would find most pleasing is something close
> to the original sky and then foreground and mountains about half way
> between the first and second versions.
>
>Chuck Norcutt
I'm sorry Moose, but I would agree with Chuck. And although I'm not
such a fan of reality (it is subjective after all) I am not so pleased
with the second picture.. it's abit overcooked :) The first pic gave
me a wonderful feeling, even if its lighting seems to have some
blocked or dull details, especially in the midtones. And certainly
what Chuck says about the sky is very well argued.
C.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|