Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/02/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] IMG: PAW 04 - Comments invited
From: jbm at jbm.org (Jeff Moore)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 17:02:19 -0500
References: <299841B5-7A92-4841-A5B0-4F749AACA227@sfr.fr>

2010-01-31-15:38:31 philippe.amard:
> I shot these this afternoon; neither interesting nor artistic as such,  
> but I used two bodies on a same lens, and didn't fiddle much with the  
> files so I'd like to know your 'perception' of the rendition of either.
>
> Note that the light had changed ... cloudy background , then sunny,  
> hence some WB issues, and or colour rendition?
> Other?
>
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Phileica/PAW-2010/2010-PAW-04-Mutz-1310602.jpg.html

These are so different because of the lighting change that I'm
disinclined even to try to pay attention to the equipment
differences.  I like the prighter (Olympus?) one because with the
similar tones all through the fields around the tree, you get (without
post-processing nonsense) an almost-monochomatic, graphic look (though
with areas of subtle color like the greyish-blue sky and the
not-precisely-black leaves coming out of the snow).  In that context,
the distracting element which weakens the picture would be the
out-of-focus foreground grass.  I'd be tempted to see what things look
like when you try cropping that out, possibly trying to leave as much
as possible of the rock border.  Doing so might require that you kill
some sky as well, if the balance looks off.  But in this case the tree
might still work nicely right there in the middle.

 -J


Replies: Reply from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] IMG: PAW 04 - Comments invited)
In reply to: Message from philippe.amard at sfr.fr (philippe.amard) ([Leica] IMG: PAW 04 - Comments invited)