Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Enchanted Woods  (Read 3234 times)

thierrylegros396

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1947
Re: Enchanted Woods
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2016, 03:49:52 pm »

This reminds me that I often used to use Dr. Beers developer formulae back in darkroom days.   ;D

Rochefort 8 gives very good results, trust me  ;) ;)

Thierry
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8963
    • site
Re: Enchanted Woods
« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2016, 07:15:26 pm »

I would have liked this one if I hadn't seen the first, but the first one is better IMO. Maybe have a few beers again before working on it?  ;)  Seriously though, I think you can get there by backing off on the contrast a bit and making it slightly darker, as Slobodan suggested. The highlights pop just a little too much.

+1

Jeremy
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7397
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: Enchanted Woods
« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2016, 06:09:04 am »

Good light. I like the tendril-like water, and how it mimics the tendrils of the branches.

KMRennie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 968
Re: Enchanted Woods
« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2016, 12:51:23 pm »

Thanks again for all of the helpful suggestions and comments. I produced the second version on a desktop machine with a calibrated large gamut monitor set to 110cd/m2. When I tried to darken the file with or without decreasing the contrast the file started to look muddy and the soft proofed file looked unprintable. For this version I have gone back to using my calibrated laptop set to 160cd/m2. So 2 versions, this one or one based on this for digital projection and a slightly lighter brighter version based on the second version with some of the saturation removed that will print dark and moody but not blocked/ muddy. All comments welcome
Ken
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up