Bob Jarman Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
RustyBug wrote:
The lack of effect on the lettering makes the lettering very prominent (combined with its tonal value) as the rest of the image takes on a more homogenous, "gray-er" tonality.
---------------------------------------------
AuntiPode wrote:
Consider trimming a bit from the left and top. Does have a different "squinty" feel suggesting doubt or suspicion.
---------------------------------------------
sbeme wrote:
Is there some dodging around the head?
Scott
Thanks for everyone's input...I've included an example illustrating straight digital versus a film aesthetic, digital on left, a baseline HP5 Plus emulation on the right. No other modifications/adjustments done.
Grossly oversimplified, digital cameras are capable of capturing far greater detail than film cameras. Additionally for film other parameters in play include speed, ASA, (ISO), development time, developer, and the response curve for that particular production run of film to name a few.
All that said, I'm of the opinion a film aesthetic can be more appealing for particular images.
Scott- re dodging - none was done. That is an artifact of the emulation and modeling of the film response to the clouds.
I did a quick check re grain distribution. Suffice it to say the distribution can be approximated by a Gaussian distribution and grain is more dense for dark tonal values (more development) than light (more paper - paper base defining the 'white' value). Of course this is all confounded by digital noise.
Film emulation aesthetics are often described has having an 'organic' feel/look compared to digital - pleasing to some, not pleasing to others.
Anyway, what little I know/remember at this point - I'll keep playing.
Adding full image for viewing comparison.
Bob
|