>
> OK, I re-did the waterfall and it's closer to what I see in the darkroom
> print:
>
> http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/PICS/BigBasin09/content/bin/images/large/20091207_161.jpg
Honestly, I REALLY liked the first version you presented. Sure, it wasn't
"real", but most good B&W images aren't. Saint Adams bent reality on nearly
all of his prints and he frequently used green filters and or orthochromatic
films to lighten vegetation.
As to Moose's image... I spent a few minutes working with it and concluded
that is a composition which doesn't warrant B&W conversion well. There is
absolutely no way that I could fine to separate the little tree from the
background. The background wasn't blurred enough to separate subject from
background and the brightness level was also the same. I couldn't even pick
a color to lighten or darken to separate the subject from the background.
The image just flattens and doesn't have any dimensionality to it to give me
anything to look at. Not being critical (OK, maybe a little), but the
picture didn't do anything for me at all.
I'm not picking on Moose, here. Trust me, I've got hundreds (if not a few
thousand) B&W images that are exactly like that. It looked great in the
viewfinder, but somehow it didn't translate to anything even remotely
interesting in print and those that I think DO make it other people find
BORING!
AG (sleep inducing) Schnozz
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
