Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 19:53:20 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 18:39:15 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 17:49:54 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

Took my time - composed, used the light meter, got it.

Unretouched - no post processing.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C060213.bmp

Shot this morning while walking through my 100 Acre Woods.

Terrific side lighting, great tonality. I like it.

Yeah - I really liked the way that one turned out.

Here's the color version if you are interested.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C060213.JPG

I think due to the subdued light and pale colors, it's more successful in
grayscale. Luminosity trumps chroma on this one.

I just processed the hell out of it - everything except sharpness.

Not sure if it's any better or not. Certainly looks different than it
did when I shot it - not at all what I saw.

What do you think?

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/..._processed.jpg

As a photograph that shows me what your woods look like, I like the second
color version. I think it's a better documentation of what the woods would
look like on a given day, even though I've never been there. But as an
object d'art, I prefer the grayscale image. It has major mood going for it.
For me, this photo is all about light and shadow. And removing the chroma
in this case removes all competition for attention to the luminosity.


That's a good way to describe it - I agree totally.

I've also took some shots with my pond in the background - I'll work
on those and see what you think of them. They will need some
adjustment as they didn't quite come out the way I wanted them to.

Needs some adjustment.
Nice woods, good photos.

One small quibble, if you compare the file sizes of the as shot and
processed coluur images, you will see that the processed one is less
than half the size. Visually comparing a limited portion of the image
will show you how much detail you have lost. (e.g. There is a knot in
the trunk at X,Y 560,180 (from top left) and the bark has noticably less
texture in the processed version.)

while I'm nitpicking, whats with the BMP file? Odd choice of format for
either storage and processing (I tend to prefer TIFF for its lossless
compression and good portability accross the rather dated tools I use)
or internet use (non windows based browsers will probably choke on it).
If you want a lossless compressable format that is web friendly, why not
use PNG?