On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 11:34 PM Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It seems to me that there are always at least three versions of any
> subject.
>
> The way it looked to me (or looks to me in memory.)
> The way it looked to the camera, as converted from Raw with defaults.
> The way it feels to me.
> The way I hope will convey to others how it feels to me
>
Nicely put. The only version step that is not actually cognitive is the
second one. Remember when we (possibly not you) used to think of only the
camera rendering as truly "honest"? (forgetting St. Ansel's "score" and
"performance" -- still apt metaphors for the aesthetic transformation of
the camera's mechanical rendering). Score and performance works for me.
What do you think?
The examples, as always, are much appreciated!
Another step-by-step, from Wednesday. Although it caught my eye, the
> straight out of camera photo is pretty blah. The
> optical or cognitive DoF of my visual system doesn't see it like that; the
> background just isn't part of what I see,
> unless I think about it. <
> http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Background%20Blur/5TinyCones.htm
> >
>
I think I would have preferred if you'd stopped with the blur step and not
gone on to further sharpening, but tastes vary. Amazing how far you can go
to get that separation.
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/
|