> Would you be inclined to move closer, or note that you want to see it better
> when you get there? Or maybe feel like
> looking or moving away?
In this case, the image would have drawn me closer to at least get an
idea of what I was looking at. The key there is once I move in for a
closer inspection, is there enough to the image to hold my attention?
Some of the most striking images we see in various competitions have
absolutely no legs. They attract and will look good for 30 seconds,
but then fail to hold for long-term. I've always tried to give the
viewer something to look at for a long time. Those images, however,
don't always show well because of the signal-to-noise ratio is so high
in a gallery, but once hung on the wall in the home, they become
contemplative pieces to study.
It's the difference between going to a Lady Gagga concert vs. a poetry
reading. One will thrill you for the hour, the other will improve you
for a lifetime.
On a totally semi-related note... I have the National Geographic on my
iPAD. It's very fascinating reading the exact same article and looking
at the exact same images in the magazine and the iPAD. What is very
clear is that when it comes to reading aspect, the dead-tree format is
MUCH better. But when it comes to the images and graphics, the iPAD
version is nicer. I've been stewing on this and think I understand
why. All the editing has been done on a monitor. As such, the
cropping, contrast, saturation and all that have an inherent advantage
being shown on a monitor. The print quality is still outstanding, but
the images have a preferred presentation bias.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|