Something bothers me a little.
This photo,
http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=10859
Is a close version
of a stunning ( 1.5 x 1 m) print I have seen in local commercial
premises. I know that the photographer who took that shot was very cagey
about telling anybody where is was taken.
I puzzled over it myself for
a long time until I started using my brains and followed clues contained
within her photo, and after that it didn't take too long.
If you stray
more than 50 cm from the precise spot needed, you won't 'get' it.
I
know that other people like it and have heard of one woman who paid $800
for a large print.
Her shot is different from mine in that some of the
central grass is gone and bare earth takes its place, making it look
like a pathway, a vital part of the visual appeal. In addition, she
placed 3 - 4 ponderosa pine cones along the 'edge' of this visual
pathway, and that clinched the appeal. I would probably arrange for that
kind of detail to be in my shots.
Question; is it ethical to closely
mimic her photograph? Aspects of the fine detail of content are crucial
for visual appeal.
Brian Swale
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|