Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Completely and utterly uncropped  (Read 4548 times)
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« on: February 06, 2007, 10:10:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I must have positioned myself just right for this shot. No cropping necessary and not even perspective correction!  

[attachment=1782:attachment]
Logged
David Anderson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 363



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2007, 01:00:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Nice shot Ray !

Does it run slightly up on the right ??  
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2007, 01:08:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Nice shot Ray !

Does it run slightly up on the right ?? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99586\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Only for perspective pixel-peepers   . Yes. In fact I would probably correct this just a little bit before printing.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2007, 05:37:25 AM »
ReplyReply

She is cute!

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2007, 06:43:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
She is cute!

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99619\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

She's 800 years old   .
Logged
larryg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 468



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2007, 08:47:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
She's 800 years old   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99627\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



They just don't make em like they used to
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603



WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2007, 04:38:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
She's 800 years old   .
I'd rather discriminate for looks than for age in this particular case.

As in the previous two samples, I have an opinion.

In this case, it's that the image just doesn't work for me; the previous (perspective corrected) shot was far more successful, there was something about the composition that worked, while this one is "just another relief/statue shot". Sorry.
Logged

Jan
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2007, 06:37:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In this case, it's that the image just doesn't work for me; the previous (perspective corrected) shot was far more successful, there was something about the composition that worked, while this one is "just another relief/statue shot". Sorry.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I see your point, Jani. It is really a documentary shot, a bit like photographing a painting, but not quite. With bas-reliefs, often the best one can do is get the 'relief' highlighted as much as possible in relation to the 'bas', which means getting the lighting at an acute angle.

What strikes me about this image is not the photographic composition in relation to its general context, but what the figure depicted is actually doing. Here we have a 'celestial nymph', with beatific facial expression, raising her right arm and pointing upwards in a heavenly direction. I find that intriguing. Did you miss that?  
Logged
David Anderson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 363



WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2007, 07:18:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Would that be the first ever fickle finger of fate ?
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2007, 07:25:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Would that be the first ever fickle finger of fate ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99954\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hardly! She's only 800 years old   .
Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2007, 11:43:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I see your point, Jani. It is really a documentary shot, a bit like photographing a painting, but not quite. With bas-reliefs, often the best one can do is get the 'relief' highlighted as much as possible in relation to the 'bas', which means getting the lighting at an acute angle.

What strikes me about this image is not the photographic composition in relation to its general context, but what the figure depicted is actually doing. Here we have a 'celestial nymph', with beatific facial expression, raising her right arm and pointing upwards in a heavenly direction. I find that intriguing. Did you miss that? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99948\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree.  It is just a documentary image of someone else's art work.  Nothing material added by the photographer.  The composition and lighting is OK for the subject, as it should be to properly document a bas-relief.

The expression on her face and what she may be actually doing are part of the original artwork.  A good photo of Mona Lisa might be equally engaging.  Proper lighting is also important for a photo copy of a painting.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603



WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2007, 03:09:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What strikes me about this image is not the photographic composition in relation to its general context, but what the figure depicted is actually doing. Here we have a 'celestial nymph', with beatific facial expression, raising her right arm and pointing upwards in a heavenly direction. I find that intriguing. Did you miss that? 
I didn't miss it, but it just didn't trigger any particular reactions with me, considering that the previous post of a very similar (but nearly mirrored) relief worked so well for me.
Logged

Jan
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2007, 10:45:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I didn't miss it, but it just didn't trigger any particular reactions with me, considering that the previous post of a very similar (but nearly mirrored) relief worked so well for me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100083\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote
I didn't miss it, but it just didn't trigger any particular reactions with me, considering that the previous post of a very similar (but nearly mirrored) relief worked so well for me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100083\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting! Is that possibly because of the difference in framing of the 2 shots, or are you just getting jaded as a result of too many bas reliefs?  

I don't think such shots are quite in the category of 'art reproductions'. These are essentially architectural details within a context. The issues of lighting, cropping and perspective are similar to those of any landscape shot. In both cases, at the time the shot is taken, the result depends on those 3 aforementioned factors. Of course, there are lots of technical considerations that are important, but from a compositional point of view, it's mainly lighting, cropping, perspective (and in the case of significantly 3-dimensional subjects, DoF).

At the risk of jading even more palettes, here's another shot of Apsaras with the 'fickle fingers' in the form of palm fronds. It's still a crop. Just an expanded view.

[attachment=1805:attachment]
« Last Edit: February 09, 2007, 10:54:10 PM by Ray » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2007, 11:15:07 PM »
ReplyReply

The above shot is actually quite detailed. Small jepeg compressed images on the net often do not do justice to the full image as seen on a large print.

The following 100% crops are indicative of the detail you would see with your nose pressed against a 30"x45" print.

[attachment=1806:attachment]  [attachment=1807:attachment]
« Last Edit: February 09, 2007, 11:16:44 PM by Ray » Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad