On 12/17/2012 3:18 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I agree with the crop on #7 but,
It's interesting to me how a modest crop can remove distraction and focus an
image so well in many cases. For others, it
makes little difference.
I suppose it's both ends of a spectrum, images that are quite diffuse, and
those with a strong central focus, where
nibbling at the edges makes little or no difference.
Whenever I think about printing some more, I get nervous. For a long time, I've
been creating web images, where I can
crop to my vision of the subject with ease, and at no cost. But I remember my
frustration in trying to make images work
in standard formats.
I don't want to become a mat cutter and custom framer. It irritates me how much
these skills add to the cost of prints,
especially as I don't feel I can afford what I would like.
Perhaps the solution for the moment is to do another photo book. The price per
image is low, and I can put whatever
shape image I want on the fixed size page. That raises another whole set of
issues, but they are more curatorial and
design related than physical and money based ...
> although I normally greatly dislike OOF
> foregrounds, I didn't even notice that on #2. I had to go back and take
> another look to see that was true. I think my eyes were riveted on the
> ice plant which I recognize but rarely see.
Makes sense. Of course, I see it all the time, and this was not a particularly
interesting bit. I suppose the feathery
foliage in the foreground was perhaps more interesting to me, so OOF was a
hindrance.
Focus 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/
|