Thank you, John and Jack for your responses.
John, - you are probably right. Having looked (now at a different ambient
light) I decreased the "exposure", which made the face features showing better.
So, thanks for that suggestion!
"The color is too intense", - I assume you were talking about the
low-color version, right?
I purposely left _some_ color, not making it B&W completely, and this is
the 5th version or so.
(Just in case you meant the other photo: I hadn't touched the colors in
the "full color" version, - those as they "were" (whatever that means).
Taking the exposure down in LR might dim those colors a bit.)
Here are the updated versions of the same two:
http://42graphy.org/misc/240/4th_IR33550-6a.jpg
http://42graphy.org/misc/240/4th_IR33550a.jpg
As for the "unfaded" vs "faded", - that was the essence at one of the
levels: "unfaded" despite the visual appearance. Or something like that...
And yes, you guess right: it is a girl.
Igor
John Thu, 07 Jul 2016 16:50:08 -0700 wrote:
In the first one, the color is a too intense. Lighting on the little
girl's face (apologies if it's a little boy - no offense intended) is
harsh & flat.
If the title is "unfaded glory", the glory in the second one shouldn't
be faded, IYKWIM. Lighting on the child's face is still too harsh & flat.
Only my opinion, so don't take it too seriously.
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
I greatly enjoy 31/1.8 Ltd. (As well as 77/1.8.)
This photo is taken wide open (f/1.8, 1/40s, ISO-6400).
I am not quite sure which version I like better:
http://42graphy.org/misc/240/4th_IR33550-6.jpg
http://42graphy.org/misc/240/4th_IR33550.jpg
(The alternative title for the first version: "unfaded glory".)
All comments and feedback are appreciated.
Igor
--
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.
