My intention is not to imply anything, cry foul etc... simply an observation, question, learning op.
in the california portion of llvj16 at about 20mins 30secs, there was depiction of the scene (two crossing hills in a V formation with two trees silhouetted). it was shown from the eye of the video camera and then the print/result of michael's photograph was shown.
up until now, i've concentrated on getting a good working image developed from raw... decent contrast, detail where i want it to be in shadows, nothing blown out in highlights unless wanted, good color. the more basic things. i have not however, done anything nearly as dramatic as what appears was done in this part of the video journal.
the video camera view, did not have dark black shadow on the left-hand side hill, nor the saturated green and brightness of the ride-hand side hill like the end result of michael's photograph of the scene.
Questions:
perhaps it was the video camera just not being able to show what the camera saw, or perhaps what the eye saw?
what did the camera see?
Comments:
assuming the video camera view of the scene is fairly more accurate to what was really there, it seems that the end result was really not "real" but instead was a dramatic digital manipulation.
now i'm not calling this good or bad, but it seems to open my eyes a little more to creative vision for a given scene. actually, yes it does seem like a good thing since it gives the original observer more license over what was seen and desired output.
overall this might seem like something that can help me progress.
