On 27 January 2011 11:16, Bruce Walker <bruce.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I beg to differ, and offer just a few from an innumerable list of excellent > images with little or no clarity. These shots are not mine--all taken from > Flickr ... > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/booleansplit/3894430548 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/minebilder/208387780 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/3134678910 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingynoo/4413415496 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/5179173922 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikolaborissov/4119473858 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/silentrunning/3609986922 > > And don't forget Christine Aguila's wonderful shot from the 2009 PDML Annual > (pg 9). Very low contrast, foggy, barely discernable bare trees in a > snowscape. Yet gorgeous; one of the most striking shots in the book. > > Too much clarity can spoil a shot. Very often you need to hide as much as > you reveal; submerge it in the shadows, unsaturate, untint or lower its > contrast, or defocus it; all reduce clarity. > > Clarity: not necessary. I would argue that only two of the sample images you linked don't rely upon "clarity" as a component of their composition and of those one I like an the other my 4yo could have shot (if he were allowed to sit in the front seat) -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- 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.
