Bob wrote:
> This could turn into an interesting discussion on the merits of cooking
> images, and what kind and how much and overall effect of said cooking on
> the image in question.
It could. This is a discussion that comes around every five years or so.
> Ken's image represents his vision. It does not look like a cliche. It looks
> like his vision, or _a_ vision if we don't know Ken.
Yes, I agree.
> I encourage Ken to keep cooking, and the rest of us to keep wrestling
> angels. <g>
I've spent a lot of years doing my share of wrestling. I can't say
that I'm done with it, but I've made peace with them.
The camera does not capture what the eye wants to see. We see the
colors, the saturation, the wet grass, the multidimensional skies. The
camera tends to flatten all that out. So, to make up for all these
"deficiencies", it is necessary to "overcook" a lot of things to bring
it back up in balance with what we naturally see in our mind. And then
I'm taking it another step to make it unique.
I'm experimenting with my vision of things. Some of you may recall
that I started this about three years ago and it's been an interesting
journey. I do go nuts with some stuff, and will crank the volume to
11. The next day, I come back, go "ewww", and add another layer to up
the volume even more. It's fun and games until somebody gets hurt.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|