On 2013-03-16 23:51, YGelmanPhoto wrote:
This week's collection is much more eclectic than usual -- probably due to the scramble to get something in after being told than Nothing was in the pot! Anyway, here's my take.
-yoram
On Mar 16, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Andrew Davidhazy wrote:
The PhotoForum members' gallery/exhibit space was updated March 16, 2013. Authors with work now on display at: http://people.rit.edu/andpph/gallery.html include:
Andrew Sharpe - Bixby Park, Palo Alto, California
I don't understand what I'm looking at.
Is that good or bad?
We're clearly looking at a watercourse, heading off into the distance
left (and you can see a bit of the next turn right in the upper right
corner of the land area). We're clearly looking at reflections of poles
coming up out of the water. The horizontal members must be essentially
on the surface of the water, since we see no separate reflections of
them. (We can verify the bottom pole images are reflections since
they're slightly modulated by the small ripples on the water.) Possibly
they form some sort of dam (perhaps the water beyond them is lower than
the water on our side of them; no way to tell from the photo that I've
thought of), or perhaps they're to limit the spread of the driftwood we
see floating in a number of places on our side of it, or perhaps it's
something else entirely. Is the image about the real-world purpose of
what we're seeing, or it it about itself?
And after looking at your next four, I see you got out of bed on the
wrong side that morning :-).
Randy Little -
The image is what it is. To me there had to be a lot of "retouching". The claim of "ZERO retouching only dodge and burn and and some minor CC" is self-contradictory.
"Retouching" and basic darkroom techniques were worlds apart. Since
he's using the term, I'm assuming he's using those definitions (since
there aren't any other agreed ones, anyway).
"Printing" included normal color correction, contrast and exposure
adjustment, and some selective contrast, exposure, and color adjustment.
(Deliberately choosing wild choices, from cross-processing to
solarization to un-named weirdnesses, was generally mentioned
explicitly, but was in any case always obvious.)
"Retouching" was taking lines out of people's faces and such (generally
by painting dyes on the print or sometimes directly on the negative).
Fancier compositing was done various ways, from multiple exposures to
extreme multi-master dye transfer printing (mostly used for fancy
advertisements as this was too expensive for most artists).
So what Randy is saying there is clear to me -- he made small
adjustments to overall and local density, and to overall color. But he
did NOT clone out or in image elements or paint things over or anything
like that.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
