Dave, The crops and adjustments were just to show possibilities, explore options, get the viewer to think about alternatives. With a few examples there'd be enough places for others to jump off and put their own interpretation into the photo, with color, cropping, tonality, and so on. A point can be made for any of the crops, maybe even a combination of them. One thing I didn't do was spend any great amount of time on the photo. I just fiddled quickly and if something looked interesting, I used it, whether it be color, tonality, or cropping. This is something of how I work with my own images.
I'll scan every frame on a roll, maybe view them as a slide show, find the ones that show the most promise, and work with them, seeing how they can be improved. It's just like in a chemical darkroom. You make contacts and proof prints, hang 'em on the wall for a while, look at 'em again and again, and soon the final photograph emerges. I don't know what you mean when you say "My question about your procedure here Shell is it really color or B&W." Shel > [Original Message] > From: David Miers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 6/20/2004 10:04:57 PM > Subject: RE: Gaurav's PAW #7: Why me? > > Just a few more cents... > > I really like this picture. I have to ask here, did you intend to cut the > man in half, and is the man cut in half the boss? I imagine that possibly > this could be an artistic statement of the evil half of the boss or > something. Knowing what was going on here really helped make this image > interesting. I noted that none of the crops done by Shel eliminated this, > so I'm guessing he had a certain fascination with it as well. It breaks the > rules, but is an example of rule breaking that works IMHO. Of course that > sort of depends to a point on whether it was an accident or on purpose..lol > 8). I doubt that anyone will argue though that some of the best images out > there were accidents. However thinking about it will certainly improve your > success rate. Shel your pulling me over to the dark side more and more > here, B&W that is. This image was made for it. The skin tone with the > pinkish tone was actually nicer, but when eliminated to be what was probably > more correct was not as attractive. Another reason for might as well go > B&W. > > The tightest crop in B&W has the most impact I think, however it brings the > half man in to close and this fails to work artistically for me now. You > fail to see the half mans hand on hip as well which gives him some of his > attitude I guess you'd call it. Actually I think even the tight crop pulls > the half man in too close. I think I would use the original crop in B&W if > it were mine. I think it's important that that half man out of focus not be > pulled in too close here. The expression on his face is best left to the > imagination with just a hint of the smile to be seen in the fuzzy focus. > > Now I too have to try Shell's method of conversion of color to B&W. I never > just convert to grayscale anymore, but often times will just desaturate the > image and adjust levels and contrast from there. The biggest reason for me > to do this is because I have found that grain filters etc do not work nearly > as well on grey scale images. My question about your procedure here Shell > is it really color or B&W. I guess if it looks good, what the heck!
