Nevertheless, that shot needs a black border.
Chuck Norcutt
On 2/18/2011 12:40 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Moose's crop is nearly identical to my two final choices. I went back
> and forth on it for some time. I think both work. I ended up selecting
> the one shown because it was more true to the original vision/intent.
> By cropping tighter, it loses the "sound" of the flowing water to the
> left. The original gives the auditory system something to do. The
> cropped version so deemphasized the flowing water that the scene
> became silent except for the sound of the crickets.
>
> The trees and their reflections are really about the most interesting
> aspect of this photograph, but I actually have another picture of
> those that is very specific to that. I didn't want to duplicate the
> same shot with a too tight crop. Those are two entirely different
> pictures.
>
> AS to the bright white surround on the Zone-10 images. That is the
> style for the site which was developed specifically for consistency
> and the way it works with any picture, regardless of brightness. If I
> have an overly black image, there is no border and the image just
> disappears into the background in some creepy freakshow kinda way.
> (floating heads) But the white border also does something else which
> is critical for B&W photographs. It helps define the brightness range
> or boundary of the image itself. Without this anchoring
> point-of-reference, the image can appear too light, too dark, too
> muddy or too edgy. This is why most B&W pictures NEED a border. As B&W
> is "abstract" by its very nature, you have to define how the image is
> to be visually interpreted.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|