Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: compared to what  (Read 4153 times)

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8197
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: compared to what
« Reply #20 on: October 26, 2010, 10:55:16 AM »

I'm beginning to think maybe the joke's on us, especially after that most recent "explanation."

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10968
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: compared to what
« Reply #21 on: October 26, 2010, 11:39:23 AM »

I'm beginning to think maybe the joke's on us, especially after that most recent "explanation."
Or perhaps Bruce is a writer for Aperture magazine.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14418
Re: compared to what
« Reply #22 on: October 26, 2010, 11:50:23 AM »

Or perhaps Bruce is a writer for Aperture magazine.



Would the post not then have been on the 'Anas' thread?

Rob C

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8197
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: compared to what
« Reply #23 on: October 26, 2010, 12:45:40 PM »

Or perhaps Bruce is a writer for Aperture magazine.

Eric, That may be it. My subscription to Aperture just ran out this year. All I can say now is "good riddance." What happened to "Aperture" is the same thing that happened to "Poetry" magazine years ago. In both cases it's a tragedy.

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5320
Re: compared to what
« Reply #24 on: October 27, 2010, 04:03:31 AM »

       The layers of order are in the mind of the beholder.  The players are the trees, posts, and other discernible objects.  The well defined, if not completely even, plane of the ground is the stage.  There is no focal point.  What would you do with one if you had if?  Bruce
If that kind of explanation is necessary to appreciate what you are trying to accomplish with the shot (and I for one certainly don't understand even after the explanation), then there's something wrong with the photograph.

Or with me.

Jeremy

Incidentally, you write of skewing the colour balance before conversion to b&w. I don't know what tool you are using for the conversion but there are several which allow you to convert to b&w and to fiddle with the contribution made by various colours afterwards, watching the image as you do. It might be easier.
Logged

Bruce Cox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 941
    • pbase galleries
Re: compared to what
« Reply #25 on: October 27, 2010, 11:15:43 AM »

If that kind of explanation is necessary to appreciate what you are trying to accomplish with the shot (and I for one certainly don't understand even after the explanation), then there's something wrong with the photograph.

Or with me.

Jeremy

Incidentally, you write of skewing the colour balance before conversion to b&w. I don't know what tool you are using for the conversion but there are several which allow you to convert to b&w and to fiddle with the contribution made by various colours afterwards, watching the image as you do. It might be easier.
       I apologize for answering rhetorical questions.  I had customized the six sliders in CW4's B&W converter to make the earlier picture, where the oaks were, as popnfresh said, "a big dark mass with little detail" because of the back-lighting.  In hope of being able to do better and take advantage of the blueish lichen on the surface of the bark, I uncolor-balanced the file with the three siders of Color Balance under Image, Adjustments, in each of the three levels [shadow, midtones, and highlights] with Preserve Luminosity unchecked.  I then used the B&W converter sliders.  Though this seemed to help, there is likely a better way to do it.  Bruce
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8197
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: compared to what
« Reply #26 on: October 27, 2010, 11:18:08 AM »

Is anyone still taking this with a straight face?

popnfresh

  • Guest
Re: compared to what
« Reply #27 on: October 27, 2010, 12:48:11 PM »

Is anyone still taking this with a straight face?
I think it's a good bet that Mr. Cox is.  http://www.pbase.com/brucecox
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8197
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: compared to what
« Reply #28 on: October 27, 2010, 01:57:33 PM »

Pop, I'm afraid you're right.

popnfresh

  • Guest
Re: compared to what
« Reply #29 on: October 27, 2010, 07:21:24 PM »

Bruce, keep shooting. The more you shoot the better photographer you'll be.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up