Continuing my “Looking Back” series, the Yellowstone 2007 edition, I present The Moose . . . and a little blurb about post-processing photos.
As usual, click on the photo for a larger version. You can go to the SmugMug Gallery, for the full size version.
By the way, a shoutout to Sandra who correctly reminded me some of these were previously presented. No, not on this blog, but they yet reside in my Picasa albums (now Google+ albums).
Those are from my heady pre-blog days, when I would create an album, and then send out e-mails few would ever read. Now I can get many more people to not read my stuff. Such is progress. By the way, I am listening to THIS as I write the post (not that anyone cares).
Oh, and there was more than one moose. There were two . . . here’s some information on the plural of “moose”:
(from Wikipedia) “The use of moose in the plural is sometimes problematic. The regularly formed plural, mooses, is by now rare and its use may be regarded as irksome and uneuphonious. The form meese—formed by analogy with goose → geese—will in most cases be greeted with a snigger, and is thus generally only appropriate in humorous contexts; even pragmatics notwithstanding, because moose has Algonquian origins—wholly unrelated to the Germanic roots of goose, on whose pattern the plural meese is formed—an umlaut plural form is etymologically inconsistent. The etymologically consistent plural form would be *mosinee, but this plural form sees no use in English. In ordinary common usage, moose is treated as an invariant noun, which means its plural is also moose (as with the names of many animals, such as deer and fish, which are also invariant); however, this usage can sometimes be considered stilted when a group of more than one moose are considered individually, in which case avoidance of the plural may be the best option, necessitating the employment of a circumlocution.”
I’ll leave it to the reader to look up “uneuphonious” and “circumlocution”, and no, the latter is not a surgical procedure performed on infants. Of course, everyone knows about umlauts, but still, it’s interesting chancing upon the word.
Anyway . . . the third day in Yellowstone found us stopping well short of a large group of people looking down the side of the road. I walked up there, and saw this . . .
The conditions were very unfavorable for photographing the animal; the sun was behind and to its side, and moose are dark, and more so in the shade.
This next shot shows the adjustments I can do in Lightroom to present the subject as a person might expect their own eyes to register it (eyes have a very wide dynamic range, plus your brain messes with what you think you see – I speak of it HERE).
It’s a war between blowing out the highlights, robbing the surrounding vegetation of its texture, and brightening enough of the shadow to bring out its hidden details.
I could go Black & White . . .
Click on the photo – it looks better in its larger format.
However, many people prefer the color version . . . but I can play with that as well.
. . . and many will look at that and say “it don’t be natural”. They are correct . . . all sorts of unnatural things be done to it.
Let’s look at another example . . .
This is already “pushed” quite a lot, but I can go more, both in B&W . . .
. . . and in color . . .
Lots of detail, but again, people might object to the coloring.
But what if it’s a bit more subtle . . . would viewers pick up on it if I only showed one photo, and not the before and after?
Some might say the latter is over-saturated, and it probably is . . . BUT . . . more details, more texture, better differentiation to the coloring. Is that a bad thing? If the latter was the only version you saw, would you know it had been heavily manipulated (seven different effects blended and stacked in layers)?
Here’s another example:
A little tougher to pick, yes? It is for me.
I can make it a bit more subtle (still lots of adjusting).
Those are all close-ups, but I think it works well for wider shots as well.
Not bad, but here’s the one with multiple layered adjustments . . .
Anyway, I just wanted to give my readers a taste for the difficult choices one has to make when presenting their work.
Even then, different people will react to different visual cues, and like or hate things based on their own preferences . . . and people wonder why I post so many photos.
That’s it. This post has ended . . . except for the stuff below.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o o o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Astute persons might have noticed these doodles, and correctly surmised they hold some significance for me, and perhaps for humanity at large.
If you click on the doodle, and nothing happens, this is the link it’s supposed to go to: http://disperser.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/palm-vx-and-i/.
Note: if you are not reading this blog post at Disperser.Wordpress.com, know that it has been copied without permission, and likely is being used by someone with nefarious intention, like attracting you to a malware-infested website. Could be they also torture small mammals.
Please, if you are considering bestowing me recognition beyond commenting below, refrain from doing so. I will decline blogger-to-blogger awards. I appreciate the intent behind it, but I prefer a comment thanking me for turning you away from a life of crime, religion, or making you a better person in some other way. That would mean something to me.
If you wish to know more, please read below.
Note: to those who may click on “like”, or rate the post; if you do not hear from me, know that I am sincerely appreciative, and I thank you for noticing what I do.
. . . my FP ward . . . chieken shit.