Very good points, Shel. I do generally hold back a bit - many times allowing more visible detail to remain in favor of a bolder look.
Just yesterday I delivered some proofs to a client (family photo) that were that way. I got the impression that they were a bit disappointed because the images didn't jump out a you. It is good to hear many different opinions and ideas. Sometimes I like to look at both aspects and mull them over before deciding. -- Best regards, Bruce Friday, July 1, 2005, 5:53:37 PM, you wrote: SB> IMO, the changes totally ruin the photo. The subtlety and balance are SB> gone, replaced by overly saturated colors and an unnatural look. Many SB> "images" manipulated and adjusted in Photoshop are done with too heavy a SB> hand. One of the most obvious issues with the adjusted image here is that SB> the natural fade of the landscape, foreground to distance, is lost - the SB> balance is upset and the result is unnatural looking. SB> One of the nicer aspects of Bruce's photography is that he doesn't overdo SB> saturation and sharpness. His photos have a more natural look to them SB> than, for example, the overdone, overly manipulated look of the adjusted SB> example presented here. SB> The proper use of filters on a lens will often result in a more natural SB> looking photograph than someone's idea of what a scene should be when SB> interpreted through digital manipulation, which is often a Velvia-enhanced SB> view of the world through digital magic. SB> Whatever happened to subtlety? SB> Shel >> [Original Message] >> From: Powell Hargrave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> I beg forgiveness from Bruce Dayton and all others who this may offend. >> Just had to try some PhotoShopping :) to see how well I could make the SB> blue >> be gone. >> >> http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/Image7.htm >> >> Gradient mask with Color Balance and Brightness/Contrast. >> >> Awesome picture Bruce! >> >> >> Powell
