> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Fildes/Trunk.htm>
I like the adjusted highlight tonality, but would like half the
adjusted shadow tonality added to it. I do agree that on my monitor,
the Moose-Preferred version looks a bit edgy, and the shadows are
dropping out, but I usually attribute that sort of thing to varying
monitor calibrations, quality and such. I think I like the approach
Chuck mentioned earlier, in the context of using his Krappy Color
laptop, of looking at the range of tonalities and the composition,
not to mention the subject matter. <g> Then I make a quick subjective
judgment (judgement) on how I think a print would look. All terribly
imperfect and subjective, but then we are amongst friends here, even
if, as Moose has said, most of them are "imaginary."
As an aside, since adopting Moose's "Imaginary Friends" terminology
for people I know on the web but have not met in person, I find many
of my "brick & mortar" friends act as though I've gone a bit batty on
them as I discuss conversations I've had with imaginary friends
around the world. "Just how many imaginary friends _do_ you have?"
one co-worker asked recently. I don't believe I actually blushed, but
I might have come close. <g>
--Bob Whitmire
www.bwp33.com
On Feb 18, 2009, at 10:31 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> But, although I admire your technical expertise in your
> Moosification(s), I can't help feeling that "What Moose would do" is
> again too harsh. I recognise, of course, that you are free to enjoy
> your own expression or interpretation, but as a rule I prefer the
> tonal softness of the original. I enjoy the adjusted tonality of
> highlight or shadow, but the last one is just too "edgy" (I can't
> think of another word to describe how I feel about it).
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|