On 8/8/2013 1:16 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> Nah, didn't set off any bells here, good or bad. Too low key to excite me.
> Interesting take. One that I don't disagree with. When making prints,
> I find that it's better to keep them lighter and not so dark. However,
> for web display, having a good solid tonal anchor gives the images
> enough snap and pop to be interesting. Different environments. I
> suspect that your monitors are setup more for matching a printed image
> than a trans-illuminated image.
OK, force my hand. It's nothing to do with light/dark. The subject doesn't push
any of my buttons, just one of those I
blink at and pass by.
Doesn't mean it's good or bad, just not interesting to me. I've really learned
about that, sitting and watching people
go through my photo books, sometimes chatting about the book, sometimes just
watching them turn the pages.
Nobody likes all the same images. One person will just flip past an image that
caused another to cry out. I thought one
in the first book, out of 100, was a complete failure. No one spent more than a
second looking at it. Then a friend
stopped at it, talked about how it affected her in a choked voice and was
crying.
Ya gotta just go with your own instinct.
Low Affect Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|