#1 is awesome; i have some hesitation for #2![]()
#1 is awesome; i have some hesitation for #2![]()
I thought that too when I did it. On the other hand when you print you may find it helps. Not something I do but often people increase colouration to get round the reduction in dynamic range that prints suffer from. Colin might chime in on this aspect.
Other people often seem to use tone mapped style colouration which personally I hate. I usually see that when people are selling pictures at markets of one sort or another. I did happen on a gallery with shots from some "names" for sale in it and I would say that all had saturation increases or had been processed in some way that gives a similar effect.
John
-
Ken...of course I am joking. Didn't you see my big smile ?![]()
Thanks for all the additional comments.
John(Shadowman), my wife is a potter and sometime water Colourist. Which do you think she would prefer (allow). Pretty much a foregone conclusion.
John W, you may have a point. As a rule I don't print these days. (I've run out of room to store them.) but I do know that paper does not have the dynamic range of a digital image and I had forgotten that. We shall see.
Last edited by John 2; 18th March 2014 at 10:10 AM.
It's No 1 for me with your slight mod,but, nothing wrong with No 2.
Grahame
No she prefers the second. At one time, she had a slight difficulty in seeing photography as art but I note that as time goes on, that is becoming less the case. She has actually been more accepting of some of my more recent efforts in that context.