"Aaron J. Grier" wrote:

- Ken Nadvornick:
how bleh. good composition. it looks a little under-printed,
though, like there should either be more contrast, or it should
be just a tad darker. the color tint does throw me off a little
and add to the mood; I converted to B&W and it doesn't seem
nearly so sinister.

Hi Aaron,

Thanks for all of the reviews, mine included.

Interesting, your comments regarding contrast/darkness. This print was made
using a variable-contrast paper exposed through a contrast grade #5 filter.
It highlights an optical illusion problem I frequently experience in the SI
and which has no reasonable solution for me.

Black and white photos (including these digitized SI likenesses) often
utilize their background display mount (or screen color) tones to help key
their shades of gray. B&W photos are normally mounted on white, or
off-white, museum boards. Alternatively, the SI "photos" are by default
displayed on a black background color.

Against a white background the tones in a photograph will appear to be
darker and/or richer than they really are as the pupils of the viewer's eyes
are reduced to accommodate the glare of the white boards. Against a black
background the opposite becomes true.

If you flip back and forth between the following two versions of my
submission, I think you will see the dramatic effect these two opposite
backgrounds have on the final appearance of the image. In both cases the
picture is the same one as was originally submitted:

http://mysite.verizon.net/kjnadvor/C...n/UglyDark.htm

http://mysite.verizon.net/kjnadvor/C.../UglyLight.htm

Since I manually print my original photos in a traditional wet darkroom they
are printed to look pleasing to me when displayed against a white mount
board background. I do not alter them to look good against the black
background of the SI where, I agree with you, they do look weaker.

Ken