Pulling Strings With The 70-200 VR2!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Things are getting a bit spotty with the 500/4 Nikkor!!
Next: But will MS's overheat in the sun, like the Crapple iPad?
From: Superzooms Still Win on 6 Aug 2010 17:21 On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:50:42 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >Here's an example of how I determine the need to flop: > >http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/tractor.jpg > >If that original image was the top version, I'd flip it horizontally >to the bottom version. I want the directional element going >left-to-right. p.s. Your reasoning is bass-ackward (duh, like that's any surprise). In a left to right reading culture, the viewer's eye would continue on, right off the page and want to go look at something else, seeing something else, as-in, where's the rest of the sentence or story. Whereas if the direction of travel in that image was right to left (original image), the viewer's eye would more likely get trapped into the image, not being able to get past the tree. (Anyone other than tony cooper, please take note.)
From: TheRealSteve on 6 Aug 2010 20:03 On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:53:34 -0500, Superzooms Still Win <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: > >What I don't understand is how flipping an image left/right is going to >ever improve an image. If the image has good composition, viewing its >mirror counterpart will make absolutely no difference at all (except in the When I was in the newspaper biz, we would sometimes flip images not due to the composition of the image but for the composition of the page. For instance, if the image fit better to the left of the story but the subject is looking left, we might flip it so the subject is looking at the text of the story. It draws the reader's eye in the right direction and attaches the story to the picture better than if the subject was looking the other way. Steve
From: tony cooper on 6 Aug 2010 20:49 On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:03:05 -0400, TheRealSteve <steve(a)example.com> wrote: > >On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:53:34 -0500, Superzooms Still Win ><ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: > >> >>What I don't understand is how flipping an image left/right is going to >>ever improve an image. If the image has good composition, viewing its >>mirror counterpart will make absolutely no difference at all (except in the > >When I was in the newspaper biz, we would sometimes flip images not >due to the composition of the image but for the composition of the >page. For instance, if the image fit better to the left of the story >but the subject is looking left, we might flip it so the subject is >looking at the text of the story. It draws the reader's eye in the >right direction and attaches the story to the picture better than if >the subject was looking the other way. > Yeah, makes sense. I do believe in the "drawing the eye" concept. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Peter on 6 Aug 2010 21:37 "TheRealSteve" <steve(a)example.com> wrote in message news:ag8p565uivm9dmn5f6ug44tj4kv5sub0q4(a)4ax.com... > > On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:53:34 -0500, Superzooms Still Win > <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: > >> >>What I don't understand is how flipping an image left/right is going to >>ever improve an image. If the image has good composition, viewing its >>mirror counterpart will make absolutely no difference at all (except in >>the > > When I was in the newspaper biz, we would sometimes flip images not > due to the composition of the image but for the composition of the > page. For instance, if the image fit better to the left of the story > but the subject is looking left, we might flip it so the subject is > looking at the text of the story. It draws the reader's eye in the > right direction and attaches the story to the picture better than if > the subject was looking the other way. At some papers that would be a big no - no. e.g. The NY Times has fired photographers for doing just that. It may sound harmless and work as an aid to the story, but they consider it unethical. -- Peter
From: Savageduck on 6 Aug 2010 22:02
On 2010-08-06 17:49:28 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:03:05 -0400, TheRealSteve <steve(a)example.com> > wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:53:34 -0500, Superzooms Still Win >> <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> What I don't understand is how flipping an image left/right is going to >>> ever improve an image. If the image has good composition, viewing its >>> mirror counterpart will make absolutely no difference at all (except in the >> >> When I was in the newspaper biz, we would sometimes flip images not >> due to the composition of the image but for the composition of the >> page. For instance, if the image fit better to the left of the story >> but the subject is looking left, we might flip it so the subject is >> looking at the text of the story. It draws the reader's eye in the >> right direction and attaches the story to the picture better than if >> the subject was looking the other way. >> > Yeah, makes sense. I do believe in the "drawing the eye" concept. ....but what if we take a well known subject and just create confusion by flipping the image to "draw the eye?' This lady for example, by gazing off to the right, inexplicably becomes left handed. http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/SoL-Flip-A.jpg or this famous flipped shot which led to a certain Western character being known, incorrectly as a "left-hand gun." < http://www.walker47.com/assets/images/articles/art_billykid1.gif > < http://www.cardcow.com/images/set57/card00192_fr.jpg > -- Regards, Savageduck |