Um, Moose, I am exposing to get the details of the redwood :-)
The foliage does look brighter though. I think that's a vuescan
artifact. The darkroom print is more toned down. I will play with it a
bit.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Don't worry. I'll complain for you. I think it looks metallic, like an
>> aluminum Christmas tree.
>>
>
> OK, let me try again. Look at the color version.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous&image=_MG_0441cria.jpg>
>
> Notice the relatively dark color of the older foliage and light green of
> the new. This was taken in early June. By late in the year, the light
> green will have darkened.
>
> Now look at the slightly revised B&W version.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous&image=_MG_0441crbwia.jpg>
> A pretty good tonal match for the color original, I think. You can
> switch back and forth between the two with the Alt-arrow keys.
>
> Now look at one of Richard's images from the same kind of forest.
> <http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/PICS/BigBasin09/content/20091207_168_large.html>
>
> My point is simply that the redwood foliage is very high toned and high
> contrast. In a couple of the images from this gallery, it almost looks
> like there is snow on the foliage, very bright with dark stems.
>
> My point, as before, is that I don't think the tonality of most of
> Richard's Big Basin images are at all natural. I've spent all my life
> around redwood trees, and that's not what they look like to me.
>
> Moose
--
// richard m: richard @imagecraft.com
// w: http://www.imagecraft.com/pub/Portfolio09/ blog:
http://rfman.wordpress.com
// book: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/745963
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
