On 12/1/2011 11:18 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Moose's alterations aren't iPad friendly, so I'm not sure what he did yet.
> But I do want to address a couple of things.
>
> The overexposed look was part accident, part intentional. This was SOOC.
I fully understand the part accident part. I participate in that program. :-)
And I understand that it is SOOC. Still overexposed. Not disastrously so, but
perhaps not the best advertisement for IQ
of the E-1?
> From an educational perspective, I'm not so sure how much people can learn
> about the capture side of the equation from a heavily edited image.
I agree, but if illustrating what one should look for on the capture side to
allow the easiest path to whatever final
final result is desired, is this a good example? You can blow the highlights
later, if desired. But I do understand.
It's commercial work and, as below, the desired end result is that, so why make
more interim work to get there.
> Secondly, the overexposed look was partially intended because of a
> particular CURRENT look which this shot was supposed to fulfill.
I suspected as much. That's why the caveats in my post. I am absolutely
ignorant of trends or fads in commercial
portraiture. Too bad so many such images will have to be looked back on in the
future.
> I have
> since worked on the image some and the toned down version maintains the
> look without hurting your eyes. Other shots were better SOOC, but didn't
> illustrate the background effect as well.
>
> As to the skin. The edited version has a touch of color tone adjustment,
> but my preference is for a bit more pink than what we normally see from
> most digital cameras. Ideally, we'd have Portra's Peaches and Cream
> tonalities, but no digital camera has successfully attained that. In this
> SOOC image, I purposefully kept all texture intact.
I'm a not see it, Boss - until I bring the highlights down. My screen shows
images posted here too dark for my taste
about as often as too light, so it may be a good balance.
> ...
>
> As the image is, it does convert to monochrome very well. I'm finding that
> my B&W conversions look a lot better if the source image is punchy to begin
> with.
That makes sense, but I, and I imagine most of those viewing it, have no idea
that is a goal of your SOOC portraits. Is
it worth making the color version less than it could be?
> Candace and I have had discussions about this current look and why it has
> come about. ... We didn't come to any conclusions other than that the current
> style of blowing out the image is stupid, but it is too easy to fall behind
> and out of style.
Glad I'm not in that business!
> ...
> Based on past experience this shot will actually print up pretty nicely for
> the final use.
If blown out is the style, yes, it looks good for that.
A Portrait Of Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|