"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>
> assumed_gamma is not meant to be used as an artistic tool, if you really
> want such an effect then just do some post-processing in Photoshop the same
> way you would with a real photo - it's much more flexible.

This is true and, as any experienced photographer knows, if in the darkroom or
Photoshop, you usually do. But as Ansel Adams discovered it always comes out
more natural looking to put the filter directly on the lens. Compared to that
dodging and burning highlights and shadows is kind of trick. But a trick still
necessary to "calibrate", one might say, the physical input to the human eye. I
refer to the article quoted in this thread about how Adams used lenses:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filters.htm. Just as you have to calibrate a
monitor to faithfully reflect the picture, you have to adjust the picture so
that it looks convincing to the brain.

The article goes on "That said, the best images come when nature is at her best"
But POV does not have a beautiful moonrise over Yosemite to work with. But in
the dark with only our imagination to guide the way.

Post a reply to this message