>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto/sets/72157604387278924/
Thanks for your comments ... responses in-stream below. From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... I think the renderings, overall, are a bit muddier than what we're > used to seeing from you. Was that intentional? > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > My earlier comment gave me pause, and I realized my monitor was > overdue for calibration. So I ran the calibration and had another > look. "Muddy" is the wrong word. In fact, the shots are quite high > contrast. I think that what's bothering me here is the density of the > blacks. But it is a look and a valid choice. However, I still prefer > some of your other BW work that shows more of a range of blacks. From: Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I love the richness of the deep shadows in this series. Visible > detail > isn't everything, especially when those details are just noise > (figuratively > not technically speaking ). These shots have a classic gallery > look to > them, I like them. I did wonder about "muddy" as my own thought was "are they too contrasty?" where I usually associate muddy with tonally flat. The rendering was a conscious choice, and as we can see by these responses, there is a range of tastes for work with different kinds of looks. Note that the contrast does increase with these down-sampled web rez images compared to the originals destined for A3 paper prints. Sometimes I do a minor adjustment, I didn't with these. thanks again! Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
