Don't drop it too much or it might lose its magic light. I said "just
slightly".
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/10/2013 7:58 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
> Actually, the B&W was set to simulate one or another kinds of film.
> At this point, I'm not sure which because I didn't jump through all
> the smart-object hoops to be able to reload it in SFx and see. It
> looks nice as a print, better than on screen, but it's definitely not
> for everyone. I'll put one print out somewhere--probably a mid-sized
> one in the 10x15 image-size range, and wait for the right person to
> see it.
>
> One of my discoveries since beginning to sell images to the general
> public rather than to specific customers is that tastes _really_
> range across all spectrums. My early mistake was in believing that
> there would be more than a few people who liked any photo I liked,
> and therefore I would saturate all my venues with each image. That
> turned out not to be the case. Sometimes an image doesn't speak to
> that many people, but when it does, it _really_ does, and they won't
> be stopped. I still believe that if I like an image, someone else
> will like it enough to buy it, and by and large, I'm right. It's
> images I put out that I don't really like but which I believe will
> find a market that more than often do not find a market. Funny how
> that works. <g>
>
> I'll post another B&W today sometime. It was one of those iffy,
> high-grain jobs that I really liked but which languished in smaller
> sizes. But I had a large one on the wall at a local restaurant, and a
> guy called me, said he wanted it, and how could he get it. I resisted
> the urge to be a smart ass and tell him just to take it off the wall
> at the restaurant, and instead told him to drop by the gallery at his
> convenience and I would have it there for him. He came over next
> morning, picked up the print, handed me a credit card, and was out
> the door in five minutes. He saw it, liked it, and bought it. (Wasn't
> a problem with the restaurant because they don't charge me
> commission.) Since then I've sold several large versions on the
> print.
>
> I'll try the reduced saturation trick on the HDR image and see how it
> looks. It occurs to me it might benefit from just a touch of blur,
> also known as glow, that won't reduce the sharpness but might take
> another bit off the HDR effect.
>
> Thanks for looking!
>
> --Bob
>
>
> On Jan 9, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> I like all 3 of them up there although I think the B&W conversion
>> and what I assume is simulated grain looks just a bit strange. I
>> assume the reduced resolution has done it no favors. The Pemaquid
>> shot is very pretty but, I agree, the HDR treatment is evident.
>> But I'll bet you could drop the saturation just slightly while
>> still leaving a beautiful print that's not obviously HDR.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|