Originally posted by GordonMcGregor: A great shot from John - excellent clarity, well executed, good choice for 4th July week. Well done!
and a question on my entry - I think the thumbnail looks better than the ''full size'' version - any thoughts ?
Gordon,
Thanks to you and everyon for the compliment... I don''t have any problem with the thumbnail or the full sized version of your photo.. I liked it either way. In my voting and comments, the thumbnail is a non-issue. They are only for reference and i rarely mention the thumbnail in the comments...
What do you think looks better about the thumbnail?
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/8/2002 11:27:31 AM.
I think that with a shot of that nature, the thumbnail gives the appearance of the photo being clearer than it is. Instead of seeing moer in the large image, the distortion is more noticeable.
This shot was one of my favorites, but I know others have had that affect on me. Especially if the contrast or sharpness in not what it should be.
Is that a bad thing? And is there a way around it? Sometimes, I think I have taken a good picture looking at the camera back thumbnail and then when I look at it large, I see the person's eyes are closed or something's there that I didn't see before.
I could see Squint! better little, but it was really cool big. It was just more abstract big.
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor: and a question on my entry - I think the thumbnail looks better than the 'full size' version - any thoughts ?
I think this is true of several entries from last week, and of mine this week. I think it's because when we go to the larger image, we don't usually move back from the monitor. In a gallery, you need to stand back and view some pictures from where it's all within your central field of vision, others you want to get up close and see the detail. I think the "abstracts" require the "overview" so we can see (create) patterns; seen up close, they're often just blobs of color.
I think the presence of these patterns (deliberate or natural) are a major criteria we use for differentiating "art" from "pretty."
I think I actually went back and raised a couple of scores based on viewing the thumbnails of the voting summary page. I also review the thumbnails on the submissions page before I start going through and voting.
Originally posted by GeneralE: Originally posted by GordonMcGregor: [i]and a question on my entry - I think the thumbnail looks better than the 'full size' version - any thoughts ?
I think this is true of several entries from last week, and of mine this week. I think it's because when we go to the larger image, we don't usually move back from the monitor. In a gallery, you need to stand back and view some pictures from where it's all within your central field of vision, others you want to get up close and see the detail. I think the "abstracts" require the "overview" so we can see (create) patterns; seen up close, they're often just blobs of color. --Paul[/i]
I certainly think I like the thumbnail because it is more apparent what the subject is. You make a good point about the viewing distance though - most people looking at things on a monitor are probably closer than is 'normal' for looking at photographs/ art in general.
That was the problem with my photo,.. the thumbnail show exactly what the subject is,. but once you view the full sized image, you really ahve to site back 2 or 3 feet to view it properly... well enough of that,.. Great shots from everyone this round, congrats to the winners.. much deserved.
Yours was on I thought was great as a thumbnail, but not enough detail larger. This one really did leave me wanting just a little more definiton.
Originally posted by ezns: That was the problem with my photo,.. the thumbnail show exactly what the subject is,. but once you view the full sized image, you really ahve to site back 2 or 3 feet to view it properly... well enough of that,.. Great shots from everyone this round, congrats to the winners.. much deserved.
I didn't get a chance to vote on this one and I do like the photo that won, BUT... I couldn't help feeling like I had seen it before.
I finally realized I had seen it in some post-Sept 11th photo of the year voting contest and had liked it enough that I downloaded a copy. It has the original photographer's name on it - Chris Lansberger.
John's photo is beautiful and it may just be a tribute to this photo or another one, but the similarity is obvious and I think some credit should be given to the original photographer. I don't know what/if the copyright rules are on this site and I'm no expert so maybe it's no big deal.
I'm realizing I sound a little critical in my above post. I'm sorry - I didn't mean to. John's photo is gorgeous, and heaven knows we wouldn't be at this if it was a crime to have the same idea someone else has had before...
I checked out all the photos and kudos to all, especially John.
I will go ahead and post my sources of inspiration for this photo here. I had not seen the Popular Photography issue photo before I did this one and I wish i had or i would have posted my second photo instead.
As for giving credit, that is BS. I would definitely give credit if I was attempting to directly duplicate a photograph. How many people do you see giving credit to the first person who photographed the Eiffel Tower or the White House? :)
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/9/2002 6:40:36 AM.
Give credit??? That's crazy. How many of us have done water drops that's been done a million times....or flower photos or macro shots ? Things are getting pretty tense around here lately. ~shaking head~
John, you did a awesome photo. I am sick of seeing it put down or questioned. Keep doing what you do best:) You've taught me so much and as your friend this BS hurts me. IF anyone deserves credit for this photo, it's you. The inspiration links suck compared to yours. That's fact.
You guys are right! My comment about giving credit to some other random photographer who happened to create a similar photo at another time is completely unfair to John and his excellent photo and every other photographer who's strived to create a great photo. Every photo is a new twist on something.
My apologies to you, John - I'd remove my post, but it's been interesting to see the flare up... I feel like I deserve this chastising, so I'll keep my comment up.
Originally posted by shedonist: You guys are right! My comment about giving credit to some other random photographer who happened to create a similar photo at another time is [i]completely unfair to John and his excellent photo and every other photographer who's strived to create a great photo. Every photo is a new twist on something.
My apologies to you, John - I'd remove my post, but it's been interesting to see the flare up... I feel like I deserve this chastising, so I'll keep my comment up.[/i]
I'm not complaining about your comment... I got a LOT of comments like that and I'm used to it :)
"Getting a lot of those comments" and "being used to it" are no reasons why I shouldn't apologize though... Since I've managed to pull my head out of my a** for long enough to realize it was a bitchy comment and apologize, at least I've learned something today - don't post when PMS-ing.
