Thanks for mentioning my Europe trip photos and the praise!
Well said Joel. For over 90% of my shots I was trying to keep the original
mood especially for travel and street snaps. These kind of photos are
something for triggering my memory, by looking at them I'm going back there
again (I'm a guy that enjoy thinking about the pass) so I want to keep
exactly how they looked. It won't matter for some minor imperfection,
perspective correction is something that I won't take in most cases. I also
don't like over correction of shadow or highlight, it makes things unreal
and in many cases with the side effect of lost concentration (bring up of
non necessary details), same for the over use of LCE.
To me post processing is very complicated, it requires good combinations of
senses of art and realism. I'm not good at that so I just try to keep
trusting a good camera rendering. Fortunately, the Europe shots mentioned
were taken with a E-1...
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Wilcox"
>
> I immediately noticed the convergence in Nathan's photo
>
>
> http://www.greatpix.eu/Other/Sometimes-I-use-film/7590141_XFqsu#766329144_GQaJo-O-LB
>
> and thought I would probably have done what you did to "correct" it
> had it been mine. Then I immediately questioned that response. I
> often question myself whether this is an aesthetic judgment or a type
> of compulsiveness. I sometimes do it because I don't want someone
> else to point it out, as though I fear the perception of a lack of
> awareness more than the aesthetic effect itself. It sets up a
> "technique vs. art" dynamic that ends up making me out of sorts.
>
> I have this dialogue with myself all the time, as I often cannot
> resist leaving things that are probably good enough as they are.
> There is no need to accept shortcomings of lenses or decisions at the
> time of shooting. The shortcomings can provide the spice of variation
> to a degree, especially fixed shortcomings like perspective
> distortion, and the uniformity of PP can result in a sameness and
> blandness of result. Photography can lose its historical connection
> to realism.
>
> So how to make the "shortcomings" of lens distortion work for me?
> C.H. Ling posted dozens of photos from a trip to Europe several years
> ago which showed an intelligent and pleasing handling of convergences
> and I believe I would rather master that one skill than a hundred PP
> techniques. Nevertheless, it should not be an "either/or" imbalance,
> but a "both/and" balance.
>
> I would argue that a lack of symmetry is what is often most disturbing
> about WA shots, but when the symmetry is pleasing, I at least feel OK
> with quite a bit of slant. Other PP techniques that I often feel
> slave to are highlight/shadow renderings, as though less than a
> perfect contrast range will not do, with no white allowed to venture
> beyond a Zone VIII and no black beyond a II-III -- in effect, where no
> characteristic is allowed to be more important than another. I am
> often stunned and thrilled to see a photo I like that isn't "perfect"
> -- it's usually a high key one, something I never do -- that has
> actual blown highlights! and I don't mind it!
>
> In the end, I'm still championing Nathan's version as is, warts and
> all. But it's an emotional reaction to the photograph, in this case,
> not a rejection of PP. I'm too far gone for that.
>
> Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|