> *From:*pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Eric Nelson
> *Sent:* Friday, January 28, 2011 1:29 PM *To:*
> pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx *Subject:* [pure-silver] Re: Today's
> Watercooler Discussion: Dynamic Range
>
> I think it depends on the eye of the practitioner as some folks have
> definitely gone over the top HDR-wise creating an almost hand
> colored postcard look to things. Certainly clouds can get a weird
> look to them when worked on by a what I would call a novice as they
> tend to add way too much drama that wasn't in the original scene.
>
> In re:to your question, I think it's a combination of what we're
> used to seeing, surprise at the range from our lowered expectations
> from digital up till recently, and users getting a little heavy
> handed in their use of the method. Your examples didn't seem too
> heavy handed for the most part. In B&W I'd be bleaching and dodging
> and burning like crazy to achieve that range....or is it just my
> negs?
> <http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z210/emanphoto/angkor_temple_needs_spotting_has_bettersky.jpg>
> ;)
>
> Eric
>
It seems to me that something else is going on here. When we work in monochrome,
by definition, we're abstracting reality. We don't expect a B&W image to look
"real" insofar as all the colors are absent - or at least represented by gray scale.
But a color image is inherently expected to be more corespondent to exactly what
we see. Color film barely did this well (other than the loved, lost, and lamented
Kodachrome) and digital cannot yet do so well at all. HDR is an interesting approach
to fiddling with what amount to local contrast but it usually fails the
"it looks like what I see" test...
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
