|
|
|
Terrence Kent
{K:7023} 5/2/2002
|
There's room for interpretation here, the lower contrast version seems more relaxed and "contemplative", the higher contrast more "realistic" (for lack of a better term), either way one of the best additions to the landscape project yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Debbie Groff
{K:9569} 4/5/2002
|
I really love the sense of smooth motion. The darker version does show more detail in the rocks. So..anyway..Beautiful b&w subject well taken.
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Thompson
{K:145} 4/5/2002
|
Here's the same photo with the contrast boosted a bit via soem digital magic. Does this work better in your opinion? The original image was printed at a contrast grade of 3 1/2, I may need to go to a #4 filter. Alternatively, I'm considering toning the image lightly in selenium to boots the dmax. Let me know what you think! thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Krul
{K:5597} 4/5/2002
|
I agree. A little boost in contrast would help a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Bruce Wilson
{K:540} 4/5/2002
|
I think you've exposed perfectly for the highlights, but the darks arenb't dark enough, and you've got a pretty flat shot there. Easy to fix, I'd think. Compositionally I like it. There is maybe a bit more blur in the falls in the background than is good for the shot, but the foreground water is nice. I'd really like to see this again with the contrast brought up.
|
|
0 
