I prefer version 1 since the brighter backgrounds of versions 2 and 3
have the effect of giving them foreground brightness and clarity and
causes them to look unnatural. Version 1 maintains the relative
brightness levels of the original in moving from foreground to
background. Versions 2 and 3 for the background might work if the
foreground is made still brighter.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> AG Schnozz wrote:
>> Moose wrote:
>>
>>> Not better, but certainly a different feeling. And a poster
>>> image for my
>>> argument that most filters aren't needed for digital.
>>> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wajsman/43.htm>
>>>
>> The modified image is definitely in the "West Coast" vein. Not evil by any
>> means, but losing a bit of sublety and mood that I feel in the original.
>>
>> However, that said... There are several "rules" regarding B&W photographs.
>> One particular "rule" is to define your boundaries. These boundaries provide
>> visual points of reference. B&W is "abstract" by its very nature. Abstract
>> works require points of reference otherwise your brain is stuck in "what is
>> it?" mode.
>>
> I don't know the formal rules. I was concerned about boundaries, making
> both the one at the closer ridge, the one between the left massif and
> the more distant one and the one between mountains and sky fairly clear.
>> What then would be an adequate visual boundary or point of reference?
>> Typically in B&W, that would be an anchoring white and an anchoring black
>> somewhere within the photograph. In the original, there is neither.
>> However, in Moose's modification, I feel that he stretched the contrast a
>> touch too far and lost the sublety in the midtone gradients. I would have
>> rather seen the outer levels stretched and the midtones kept more intact.
>> This would have provided the "boundaries" yet kept the moodiness in the
>> photo.
>>
> For my purposes, I wasn't trying to retain the moody nature of the
> original. However, once you mentioned it, I tried that in Version 1.
> Version 2 is similar to my original, but with gentler midtones. Version
> 3 is my original, "West Coast" version.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wajsman/43.htm>
>> But this is just my opinion.
>>
> I've worked very little with B&W in the last several decades, whereas
> you are quite expert at it.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1759 - Release Date: 10/31/2008
> 4:10 PM
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|