>>2619889>What "fakery" did I accuse you of?>I think you're getting lazy and just pushing your processing harder and harder to get tonality in the shots, rather than finding good light in the first place.If I'm pushing my processing harder and harder to get tonality, that implies I'm attempting to *introduce* it, not that I am attempting to suppress it. You might not be self-aware enough to recognize the double speak of that statement, but keep reading it.
All you have done is describe the manner in which I edit (very poorly, albeit), and after I explicitly commenting on what that manner is. You're entitled to liking whatever the fuck you want to like, homie, but preserving highlights and midtones while nuking away shadows is by no means a new idea in digital B&W; it's actually a benchmark of getting more film-like results from it. Digital shadow detail is much more definitive than film shadows.
I'm also not too sure of how you've got your monitor set up if you think the tonality from the color shot is all shot out in the processed one. The rocks behind the waterfall? I can still see the cracks and gradients on them just fine. The only blacks that are full-nubian are the foreground rocks. Given that the difference in the darkness of the foreground rocks versus the smoke-diffused fall and background is the primary differentiation this photo has over a previous version of the same shot, I'm not looking to change that.
If you overlooked the comment, the raw conversion was poorly resized and suffers from a lack of apparent sharpness against the initial jpeg for that reason. If you're unaware of how digital files work, a poor resize can also fuck up perceptions of sub-pixel (for the resize) details, including tonal transitions.
Are you capable of critiquing the photos on a non-technical level, or nah? Technicians are fun too. :^)
