I'm reminded of a high-key slide of a beautiful pedestrian bridge I
showed at a camera club clinic years ago. One judge said it was
overexposed, which was just annoying - the exposure was exactly what I
intended. I wouldn't have submitted a technically flawed slide.
Another said something like "the bridge is very light, which for me
clashes with its strength". That was more helpful - I'd meant to make
the bridge "float" with the exposure, but the composition conveyed its
strength, not its delicacy. That gave me something to work with. (Of
course, perhaps a masterful photographer could have communicated both
lightness and strength without making them clash...)
Andrew
On Feb 18, 2009, at 11:27, Ken Norton wrote:
...
> Back to my B&W image, I purposefully blew out the background because I
> didn't want the background to contain visual information to compete
> with the
> building and foreground vegitation. This was absolutely my artistic
> intent.
> Unfortunately, instead of accepting this artistic intent and allowing
> the
> eyes to study the rest of the scene, we hyper-analyzed the photograph
> for
> the fact that it contained a "technical flaw" based on "modern
> dynamic-range
> think". How is this any different than Ansel Adams' "Monolith" which
> has a
> blacked out sky? Shall we criticize AA because the sky went too dark
> and
> indicated a "flaw" in the expression of proper dynamic range?
> ...
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|