Title: Re: PF members exhibit on 08/31/13
Sorry for responding so slowly.
"Emily L. Ferguson" wrote:
> Robert G. Earnest -
One of the most interesting things I've found shooting at this time
of day is the things I have to do in my image processor to compensate
for the distortions the light gathering device inserts. The human
eye does not see the fluorescent magenta/purple and orange here and,
for myself, I adjust my image to bring it closer to what I believe I
saw; what most other people usually see.
Fair enough, Emily. But for me this project is about the things the eye cannot see. Some of these images are taken in such low light that nothing can be seen by the human eye. But the sensors can. How does one adjust an image to what people usually see when one can see nothing? You might as well argue that photographs of deep space aren’t the right color. And on another note, my birth father has a rare color blindness which resticts him from seeing any color at all. Only shades of gray. I would very much like to go out in the evening and photograph with him. See what he feels. Because I am sure that he can sense differences. I want to feel colors and not just see them.
So to me this image isn't
very attractive, and based on my personal criteria, isn't well
processed.
Attractiveness is not necessary. BUT!!! I would very much like to know your criteria for a well processed image. What have I done wrong and how can you tell? Please tell me as I really want to do well at this and You seem to be aspiring to much more stringent standards than I. You can reply to me here or personally at robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Seriously, I really want to know! Thanks!
On the other hand, the car's interior light does some
very interesting things with revealing the person and the telescope
on the tripod and to me is quite effective in the image.
Just shooting things as found. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
