Thank you, Stan, Darren and Cotty for the feedback.
It's always interesting to me to compare people's reaction/impression.
I find that the are images that are (almost) obviously and universally
liked (or disliked) by most.
And then there are images that are somewhere in between, and with those,
the opinions are the most diverse.
We've got a nice season of flower, and I've been struggling with getting
the images that I unequivocally like myself.
At some point last night, I was ready to discard all three images, but I
decided to see what is missing in them.
I am trying to see how different suggestions given in this thread might
work.
So, - Cotty, - for your suggestion, - I see the rational behind your
suggestion. The big catch is similar to what I've experienced with another
message, - where the reds are way outside of the gamut of SRGB. And
David's suggestion in that thread was right on the money:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg734902.html
So, bumping up the saturation in the image you discussed makes it
way out of the SRGB gamut. I am still playing with the image, and while
this enhanced saturation may work for a print, - it creates some
challenges for the online image.
While writing these lines, I thought of something, and it looks like
bumping the contrast way up in combination with a moderate saturation
might give a reasonable look.
(And I am not afraid of making it a bit surreal (if it works) ... You
might not remember, - I had posted this image some 8 years ago:
http://www.komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/Argentina/IMGPa9855-jan08.jpg
Again, thanks to all! Darren and Stan, I am yet to try your suggestions.
Igor
Steve Cottrell Sun, 03 Apr 2016 02:59:11 -0700 wrote:
On 2/4/16, Igor PDML-StR, discombobulated, unleashed:
I am trying to understand preferences of different people.
Here are three different shots of flowers:
http://42graphy.org/misc/FlowersToChoose/
I would appreciate if you can tell me which of these three work or do not
work for you. And, it would be especially valuable if you can say why.
Last one 967 is the best, gives a nice size differential between
foreground and background (in this case I identify foreground as
everything in focus and background as everything behind the foreground
that is not in focus). The depth of field helps concentrate the viewing
to areas of interest in the photograph.
If it were mine I would darken it down and increase the saturation to
make it a bit more vivid, possibly even surreal. The finished image is
what I personally present for viewing, not a faithful representation of
the scene (as I don't believe such a thing can exist).
--
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.
