4 responses to “More”

1. 

   Ed

   February 4, 2008 at 5:22 am

   Damn, that’s a beautiful picture!Ed

   Reply
2. 

   Dave

   February 4, 2008 at 12:41 pm

   Hehehehe. It’s “enhanced” a bit with ramped up saturation. M and I had a “discussion” about that last night. It seems to me that using a bit of digital smoke and mirrors is like spending more $$ to shoot Velvia instead of 200 speed print. At least in terms of results. And there are plenty of shooters around with a great eye and more dedication than I. However, it bums me out (and seems like an artistic bending of the rules) when one could say something to the tune of “yeah, IF I spent the dough on a graduated neutral density and a nice lens I could do that.”Anyway…

   Reply
3. 

   Ed

   February 4, 2008 at 4:08 pm

   And a traditional artist may use a bit more paint here and there to enhance certain areas of a painting, no one would criticize that or think less of it. A film photographer has all kinds of leeway in how film is developed, etc. So why do digital photos have to be “realistic” to a fault? They don’t.So saturate away, if it looks beautiful you’ve accomplished something. Sometimes you have to ‘pop’ some things in order to convey the feeling of being there and seeing what was in your mind’s eye at the time.Good stuff.Ed

   Reply
4. 

   Meredith

   February 4, 2008 at 6:27 pm

   I had been playing around with “enhancements” earlier – just to see what I could do – and D called it Cheating.So then I looked up his blog and immediately noticed that my photo on his blog looked ridiculously fake!!!I think you can achieve the same “popping” of the orange/yellow cliffs without the neon hue by adjusting the neutral white – instead of playing with the saturation…just my opinion.

   Reply