Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/12/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Dec 17, 2005, at 2:58 PM, Ted Grant wrote: > Ric Carter offered: >> This one for instance attracted because of the brilliant orange >> from the sun on the horizon. When I started working with the >> photo, presenting it the way it looked that day seemed just too >> much, so I turned it down: >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/PAW-2005/46bb >> >> In the real world, it actually looked more like this: >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/Grab-Bag/46bbb >> >> Of course, now, rethinking it, I wonder if I turned it down too >> much??<<< > > Gentlemen what I don't understand in this thread about "changing > the look of Mother Nature's light that attracted you in the first > place?" Like why? > > As in this shot of the old school house. If it were real orange lit > and that's what caught your eye and motivated you to shoot it, why > change it at all? Because it was not a picture of the light alone. It was the light on the content that made the picture. I didn't shoot the '98 Dodge parked to the right struck by the same color light. On consideration, the strong color distracted by overwhelming the content. Bringing the saturation down made the light less what I saw, but it made the photo look MUCH more like the visual experience I had. It let the content play a bigger part in the image. > Down load, level and print! That simple! After all it isn't a > commercial assignment to photograph a pound of butter that must > match the colour of the real life butter. Well, sure! If it were a butter commercial, I would never have trifled with the color. The very fact that it's just for fun, let's me do precisely what I did -- make it the way I wanted it, not match it exactly. > This is out door beautiful light, so why mess with it? > > It's the same as the Steve Unsworth Candy Floss man! >>>> http://www.steveunsworth.co.uk/Oneoffs/014.htm<<< > > Why bother messing with it, that's what it looked like and it's > tough on anybody who doesn't like it. I mean if you didn't like the > look of red roses would you make them purple if you liked purple > better? Hell no, unless you were screwing around and wanted to > create some wild and fantasy roses... That's a different can of beans! > > Jeeeeeeeeeeeesh I can't understand why so many of you guys can't > get it through your heads that "LIGHT!" is what makes any > photograph work in the first place. I would have sworn that light making the photo is JUST what we were talking about:^) Of course, if we want to talk about some manifesto of never modifying natural, found light (and I don't believe that is your intention or belief), that's a whole different kettle of smelt. Ric Carter http://gallery.leica-users.org/Passing-Fancies PS I'm also all for GeeBee's sky darkening orange filtration and burning in. > Yes there are occasions when it's blood and guts all over the > place, even that kind of picture can use the right light to > intensify the look! > > Oh well once again it's the old guy!! > ted > > > Ted Grant Photography Limited > 1817 Feltham Road > Victoria BC V8N 2A4 > 250-477-2156 > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information