Hi, I may change my opinion later. I realized that I was wearing a white shirt, and getting more than the usual amount of reflected light on the screen even though the shades in the office were drawn. Now is not a good time for me to review the photo because the sun streaming into the office is very bright and at an angle that makes it difficult to see the screen.
But, to answer your question, it's also a matter of monitor calibration and personal taste. I think overall I prefer B&W photos with a little more contrast than Bruce, although, for the most part, I feel his color work is great and it looks good on my monitor as well. There is no "correct" Tim. For the most part, the folks on this list have got their preferences straight, know how they want their photos to look, and are capable of presenting them in that manner. And some of us are just learning those things ... I've seen quite a number of original prints by W. Eugene Smith, who, arguably, was one of the great printers of his era. Yet many of his photos have a rather compressed tonal range - but it was clearly Smith's choice to use that style of printing. He could have printed his photos in any way he wanted, but the tonal scale he used worked for those photos he produced in that manner. Shel " ............... " > [Original Message] > From: Tim Øsleby > Shel says it is flat. I don't. > I find it subtle but rich, and this is not the first time. > > This makes me wonder. Is it a matter of different tastes or different > monitors? To be honest, I have no idea. > > What I do know is: Generally speaking, this poetic subtle richness is one of > the things I admire in your work Bruce. This is something I find in most of > your work, whether the motif is flowers or human flowers ;-) like in this. > But I don't know if it is "correct" or not. I just know what I like. > > http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/moss_025bw.htm
