Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/01/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thanks to all who've weighed in. The very subjective nature of viewing, with all its personal preferences, continues to fascinate me. It seems extremely apparent that we can never please every viewer; and better have a good idea of what it is "we" want to say about a subject. regarding <http://www.imagist.com/blog/?p=4755> Without doubt the second (softer) image more closely renders how the real rocks and snow appeared? perhaps could even be called more "truthful." In the beefed up version the snow begins to appear almost icy; and the top rock looks nothing like its actual self, while the bottom rock does maintain some "accuracy." Yet the first obviously has graphic punch that the second only whispers about. In the end I actually think that the softer version requires more time and contemplation; while the punchy version works better for the quick glance. PRO #1 Richard in Michigan: I very much preferred the First Image - there was a richness and a subtlety to the tones and the depth of highlights and the shadows that is very much to my liking. The Second Image was a bit flat and a little weak in the highlight details for my tastes - these ARE aspects which might have been fine in a large print or viewed much larger on the screen. Tina Manley wrote: I much prefer the first one for the extra detail in the rock and snow. Alastair offered: For me the "effect" shot is snappier, it looks a bit overprocessed, but the effect is in keeping with the subject. The softer image is less in keeping with the textured surfaces of rock and snow, but does look more "realistic". Given that the photographer 'saw' the textured image and wanted to display that in his creation, I have no issue with the snappier processing. A MIDDLE GROUND R. Clayton wrote: "You're basically recapitulating the ancient "condenser vs. diffusion" enlarger argument here... so much that the content of the shot resembles Picker's examples. The diffusion prints, by themselves, are grey and unfinished, but DO hold more fine detail, but I find condenser prints much more appealing when hung on the wall." Mark Pope, I like both versions, though I think I'm leaning towards the second, which seems more natural. I wonder whether there's a middle ground - a sort of "Goldilocks" version, which has some, but not all of the punch of the top image, which may be the best of both worlds. PRO #2 Simon wrote: "absolutely too much.The top one looks like an alien artifact .Now please don't tell me it's the original." Steve said: our eyes are pretty used to the way things look, so if it seems too good to be true, then it's likely not true.... the second one. Montie: Gravitating toward the one with less detail (second one). I'll figure out why later after coffee :-) Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist