Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Other Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 19, 2004, 8:24 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brtsergio
Barbara, while I can appreciate the game of lighting from dark to clear as the eye moves from left to right, it is not immediate for me the cropping on the right side : I know it is not an hazard : is it to emphasize that this "broken" cam cannot work well any more or am I flyng too high with my interpretation ?
Actually, the crop was done just as I might do it for a portrait where I'm closing in, say, on a person's eyes. The camera's eye is broken and blind, but no one could know this unless I told them. And in that, the photo failed. I tried both a backed-off crop and one that came in even closer, but neither worked as well as this one.

No doubt there are other better ways to do this same photo. For instance, I'm not sure I like the way it's nearly split in half vertically. Maybe it could have used more space on the left and a more subtle shadow gradient from dark to light. I wonder, too, about the depth of field. What if it were shallower and "Canon" was more blurred but still readable?

This photo is a prime example of why a subject should be fully explored, taking pictures from various angles and with various types of lighting before going on to the next subject. It's too late now--I gave the camera to one of my son's friends. (No eBay for this little guy, digcamfan.)
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2004, 6:51 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,435
Default

Thanx for the explanation Barbara. I knew it was not an hazard.
These days I'm asking how much the photographic language is ambiguous or not.

I mean, if I drive the composition and the elaboration in such a way to express something , how many people will get the same message I'm thinking of, and how many will have a quite different interpretation ?
brtsergio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2004, 7:31 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

Art can and often should lead the mind toward interpretation, but if it insists on one and only one interpretation, I think it fails and can never have longevity. To come up with a silly example... What if there were a finger poking Mona Lisa in the ribs? The painting would end up being closed to interpretation, barring the viewer from imagining what that smile might be all about. Unless a person brings something of himself into another person's creation, that creation doesn't connect with him.

Not that my poor Canon's portrait can even kiss Mona Lisa's invisible foot.
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2004, 11:54 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,435
Default

Thanx again Barbara.

Your reply has been very useful to me.
brtsergio is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:53 PM.