Guess it is happening some ... this came through twice.
From: paul stenquist
On Feb 25, 2010, at 7:58 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: "P. J. Alling"
On 2/25/2010 1:16 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Steven Desjardins
I'm submitting a picture for an SPCA charity
event, i.e., if someone buys it the SPCA
keeps the money. This will be a print. I'd
like to hear some of your expert suggestions.
http://chemistry.wlu.edu/~desjardins/
I would photoshop out the left-most catch-light, so
that there is only > a single light in each eye. The
double catch-light in the other eye is > joined
together, so it appears as one light.
Heck, it's a cat, they;re all a bit strange so it fits...
Doesn't really matter what it's a photo of.
It's just one of those things you do for a good print. Single
catch-light in each eye. If the double catch-light in the other
eye had been separated just a tiny bit more, the second light
would have to go from that eye as well.
Nothing HAS to go. I've been seeing a lot of double catchlights in
high end fashion photography lately. Thumb through an issue of Vogue.
The photographer chooses the look. We're free to like it or dislike
it, but there's no one right way. Paul
Not singling you out on this Paul. It did come through twice.
I was trained to a standard with regards what makes a good print,
however many double catch-lights may be appearing in "high end fashion
photography lately".
I do agree that we are "free to like it or dislike it" as we please,
although I think it odd to be told I'm wrong if indeed "there's no one
right way".
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
