Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/12/31

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] PAW 46 - Statue
From: pdzwig at (Peter Dzwig)
Date: Sun Dec 31 13:13:13 2006
References: <> <002101c72cf2$810143c0$a302a8c0@ted>


thanks for the advice. I can only say that I prefer the light in the 
hair of the first to the light on the second, although I am not so sure 
(although I deliberately took it that way) about the lack of visibility 
of her face in the first. But the first shows how the sculptor was able 
to give a real sense of movement to lifeless stone and at least in part 
it's the way the light falls that helps animate it.

The first is sharper than the second too.

thanks for the advice as ever, but I **think** I'll stick with my choice 
of the first; although originally they were the other way round as PAW 
and ALT PAW.

It really just shows how good those sculptors were.

Happy New Year


Ted Grant wrote:
> Peter Dzwig showed and asked:
> Subject: [Leica] PAW 46 - Statue
>> This
>> > or this:
> Hi Peter,
> It's a tough call. It's like "which do you like, chocolate cake or white?"
> You find yourself liking both, but for different reasons. The really 
> tough part? Making the cut!
> Because I lean more in the use of light in how I shoot and see a 
> subject, I have to go with the light use in, very nice indeed.
> It gives the statue a stronger depth feeling due to the contrast. I 
> prefer the overall look of it compared to the sort of flat look of the 
> #1 photograph.
> so there you go eh! ;-)
> ted
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information

In reply to: Message from pdzwig at (Peter Dzwig) ([Leica] PAW 46 - Statue)
Message from tedgrant at (Ted Grant) ([Leica] PAW 46 - Statue)