 | Discussion on: Image 267 - "Symmetry" |
| Discussion on: Image 267 - "Symmetry" |
Discussion on: Image 267 - "Symmetry" | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Discussion, revisions and constructive criticisms of Image 267 - "Symmetry" | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Adrian Warren (AdrianW) Msg: #1 July 3rd 2005 12:25:35 | Nice shot Walt! The reflections work really well here. If this were mine then I think I might have rotated it just a fraction, perhaps 0.6°CW. Not sure about the very top of the shot, I'd consider cropping it more tightly I think. The reflection really is stunning though. I think I might have given it a title along the lines of "I'm ot talking to you" ;) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Walt Foster (Walt) Msg: #2 July 4th 2005 06:06:18 | Thanks Adrian... I've come to the conclusion that most of a successful wildlife shot is just being in the right place at the right time. I too think that there is too much space at top and bottom, but there isn't any way to crop it out without making an oddly shaped print. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Bob Wallace (BobTrips) Msg: #3 July 4th 2005 07:29:28 | "an oddly shaped print" And the problem with that is? Sort of a philosophical question, I suppose. I do think that many of us have become victims of our photography history. We shot slides or film that we had developed for us. That let us to expect images that fit rectangles of certain ratios. Anything that varies from that might well look "odd" to us. Here's a 3:1 ratio rectangle crop, vastly different than the sort of 5:4 frame that we are used to from our 35 mm film and 8" x 10" prints. I think it works better than the more square frame. The meat of the image sweeps from left to right and I can see it printed and framed large on a wall. Would work for me, anyway.... ;o) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Ali Watters (Ali) Msg: #4 July 4th 2005 07:45:44 | > "an oddly shaped print" Did a little research on photobox.co.uk - my personal choice - they do many oddly shaped prints including a 12" x 5" panoramic (30½cm x 13cm) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Bob Wallace (BobTrips) Msg: #5 July 4th 2005 07:58:12 | The 'long' dimension is the only one relevant when getting a print made. It's easy to mask with matting, assemble odd sized frames, and cut glass to fit. Back on the philosophical note: I suspect that we're about to have our ideas of "proper size" shifted with the advent of wide screen TV. People are likely to want the screen filled with the image top/bottom and side/side. I'll bet were not far away from 'wide screen' cameras. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Walt Foster (Walt) Msg: #6 July 4th 2005 08:00:03 | Darn it Bob... Now you've made me stop and think... and (gasp, shudder) change my mind (I hate it when that happens ;-)). But you're right. While I do print some, I keep 90% of what I shoot digitally so it really doesn't matter what the size is. It's the esthetics that counts. I guess for the few really good ones that I will print I'll have to make 2 copies- one that looks the best and one that is the best I can make in a size to fit a standard matte - as I don't want to cut my own or pay to have someone else do it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Bob Wallace (BobTrips) Msg: #7 July 4th 2005 08:11:46 | "Now you've made me stop and think... and (gasp, shudder) change my mind (I hate it when that happens ;-))." That's hard on us old dogs, ain't it Walt? Just when we've acquired enough gray to think that we should have it all figured out. ;o) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Bob Wallace (BobTrips) Msg: #8 July 4th 2005 08:20:00 | "oddly shaped print" Don't forget that there are inkjet printers that take rolls of paper. Using them you are limited only by the 'short' dimension - the width of the paper roll. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Walt Foster (Walt) Msg: #9 July 4th 2005 08:34:43 | Actually makes things easier... now I don't have to spend so much time trying to figure out how to get the best part of a shot to fit in a standard dimension print. Thanks! | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Ali Watters (Ali) Msg: #10 July 4th 2005 09:24:24 | > Don't forget that there are inkjet printers that take rolls of paper Do you have an example model Bob? - and can you get photo quality paper in rolls? (probably not in Hungary grumble) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Bob Wallace (BobTrips) Msg: #11 July 4th 2005 09:51:20 | Here's what I found with a quick Google. http://www.dealtime.com/xPR-Epson_C11C387011_Bundle~RD-160764300932 I believe that Epson makes 8" wide printers that take roll paper. And I've seen mention of photo quality roll paper in several widths, as low a 4" I believe. The printing forum at DPR might be a good place to do a search. And the printing forum at Luminous Landscape. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Camille (cnut) Msg: #12 July 4th 2005 09:56:16 | Love the reflection and the position of these guys. I thought I would try a crop of my own. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Number Users: 5 Number of Posts: 12 | To Reply Join Jeber Photo Clubs - you will be required to join this club | |||||||||||||||||||||
Revision: 2 Camille (cnut) |
Revision: 1 Bob Wallace (BobTrips) |
