Some peole have thought a photo of a red door in heavy overcast light was too blue. That was after I warmed it significantly in post processing.
Others have thought that lighting was too flat when that's exactly the way the lighting was, and hence the photo was very close to what I saw with my eyes. Without being present to look through the viewfinder, they may be expressing their opinion about the image they are looking at, but that has little connection to the reality of the original scene. There's a difference between saying "it looks..." and "it should be...". The first is fine. The second presupposes they know more about the image than the photographer that took it. Tom C. >From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Flat or punchy >Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:55:01 +0100 > > >On Oct 4, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Tom C wrote: > > > ... However, when a viewer tells me how my image *should* look, I > > ask myself > > "How can they possibly know?" ... > >Saying that an image "should" look a particular way is simply a >clumsy way of saying that in the eyes of a particular viewer the >photograph looks flat or too contrasty or whatever. > >Godfrey > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
