Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: A new year, a new website ...

Subject: [OM] Re: A new year, a new website ...
From: "Allan Mee" <bigalsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:39:01 +0000
Hi Moose
I'm always impressed by your PP skills and techniques - and yes, you have 
made me realise that post-processing is [almost] as much a part of digital 
photography as pointing the camera and pressing the magic button. I will 
master PS one day - I've got a big move coming up soon - will be uproot9ing 
and moving around 200 miles away so wanna get that out of the way. Besides, 
I'm really looking forward to going out shooting during the spring and 
summer - as will be the first spring and summer that I've been armed with my 
300D - then I have no doubt that I'll have 1000s of digital images of my own 
to practise with PS and PP on.
Generally, before I saw your work, when Photoshop et al were mentioned - as 
with the word filters, the first thoughts were ah - special effects - I know 
think ah enhancement and corrections!
Allan



PS No trees were harmed in the sending of this message and a very large 
number of electrons were asked their permission to be terribly 
inconvenienced. (And threw a party for them afterwards for being really cool 
about it).

Disrupting the unnatural balance that you, as a conscious human being and a 
confused mass of energy, have created.
-Disturb the mind -





>From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [OM] Re: A new year, a new website ...
>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:13:28 -0800
>
>Chris Barker wrote:
> > Thanks, Moose.
> >
> > I shall be back to the birches before too long, but I took some 645
> > photos (finishing a roll) on the same occasion and I shall look with
> > interest to see whether I did any better with the composition with
> > the different camera. [interesting to note that my Bronica RF645 felt
> > almost diminutive after holding my E-1!]
> >
> > But what do I do with your web pages?
>Mulch? Bird cage lining? I don't know. :-)
> > Or were they just to consider under the general heading(s) of your final 
>para?
> >
>Sure. I don't know if it's really productive, but I enjoy working with
>other peoples photos. I like to think I learn things from it, as they
>present subjects, problems, strengths and weaknesses different than what
>I shoot, so I figure if I get into them, I learn how I might deal with
>similar subject matter when I encounter it. Also, I think it helps me
>develop my PS "muscles". But I wouldn't do it if it weren't fun.
>
>So here I have alternate visions of various images other people have
>originally created. Sometimes, there has been a specific question or I
>have a specific point to make and I post a roll over or roll-overs to
>highlight the points. Other times, I end up with a bunch of alternate
>viewpoints about how an image could be.What to do with them? Sometimes
>nothing. Sometimes I feel like posting them might be of help to the
>creator in seeing something different, new, or at least different,
>possibilities, maybe even, if I'm lucky, a way to improve their future
>images to their own taste. And perhaps they will be of use to someone
>else. Your image of the trees lining the river with sun behind I
>wouldn't touch. The one of rows of them end on seemed murky to me; I
>wanted to be able to discern more detail.
>
>So I wandered through your site, loved some images just as they were,
>and saw what seemed to be possibilities for improvement - to my taste,
>of course - in others. I saw some beautiful stems that seemed lost a bit
>in the background,  an espalier that I liked sort of lost in the gloom,
>a crooked manor house with a bland sky with hints of cloud detail, a
>door in a wall with the stonework color and detail washed out, and
>attempted to bring them out - you get the idea. And I'm generally
>pleased with the results. For example, I like the way the mill stone
>detail has sharpened/popped so that it stands out more clearly from the
>background, and the way I was able to recover some texture detail from
>the blown looking wood. To me, it's a super composition that is now
>stronger without losing it's essential character.
>
>If it weren't work, I would have made them all roll-overs.  :-) Wander
>through. If you don't like 'em, ignore 'em. If you hate 'em, ask me to
>resist any future urges in the same direction with your images.
>
>OK, I'll admit it, I'm an advocate for the position that people rely on
>the camera and assume that's the best they are going to get to the
>detriment of what they could do. Years ago, I was mightily impressed
>when I viewed an early, straight print, or close to it, of Moonrise,
>Hernandez, NM next to a "fully realized" version, essentially the one we
>are all used to from published versions. It came to me then that the eye
>to see the image and the technical skill to capture it are only the
>first steps toward a great image. What happens in the darkroom, wet or
>dry, makes or breaks it. I want to develop the skills to make that
>difference - and encourage others to try it too.
>
>I would, by the way, never have touched any of your images If I didn't
>like them first.
>Moose
>
>==============================================
>List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================

_________________________________________________________________
Find Love This New Year With match.com! msnuk.match.com


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz