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: SneakyP on 6 Aug 2010 22:42 tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in news:37no561jpa4o4plm5iusirmgf6r7ru4n7v(a)4ax.com: > As far as "lessons", you have nothing to offer. I have never read > anything written by you that is at all informative. You think you > talk a good game, but it's all smoke and no substance. > > Who is that you say has nothing to offer? Oh, it's the bozobinned Sybil prisoner that has nothing to say. Do you often hang out at the virtual padded cell door window talking to such moranuses, or are you going to go inside too? -- SneakyP To email me, you know what to do.
From: Superzooms Still Win on 6 Aug 2010 22:55 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. > >Steve Yes, for publications, this can be important. Like never have a subject looking into the gutter of a publication (gutter = binding). There are important rules (strong guidelines) like this for multi-page bound publications. Other rules for tri-fold brochures, etc. This is not applicable however to stand-alone images. (For the incredulously affected basement-life trolls: How about that, he even knows about the printing arts! I spent five years as chief editor for a series of books at one point. Where does this person's experience and knowledge ever end? .... it doesn't, deal with it.)
From: tony cooper on 7 Aug 2010 00:03 On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 21:37:03 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"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. Hunh? The photographer has absolutely nothing to do with the placement of the photograph in the newspaper's format. The photographer takes the photograph, turns it in, and then he's no longer involved. He doesn't have any say-so in if it's used, how it's cropped, where it's placed, or how it's placed. It's the same with reporters. They have no say-so in any of those aspects of if, where, how much, or how the story is placed. They don't even write the headlines for the story. All those decisions belong to the copy editors, art editors, and sub-editors. Each section of a large newspaper will have a staff for that section. Someone's been feeding you a line, Peter. You haven't been taking advice from the poster of a thousand names, have you? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Superzooms Still Win on 7 Aug 2010 00:14 On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 00:03:24 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 21:37:03 -0400, "Peter" ><peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>"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. > >Hunh? The photographer has absolutely nothing to do with the placement >of the photograph in the newspaper's format. The photographer takes >the photograph, turns it in, and then he's no longer involved. He >doesn't have any say-so in if it's used, how it's cropped, where it's >placed, or how it's placed. > >It's the same with reporters. They have no say-so in any of those >aspects of if, where, how much, or how the story is placed. They >don't even write the headlines for the story. > >All those decisions belong to the copy editors, art editors, and >sub-editors. Each section of a large newspaper will have a staff for >that section. > >Someone's been feeding you a line, Peter. You haven't been taking >advice from the poster of a thousand names, have you? Yet a photographer will be sent back out to get another image that works better in a publication, after showing him what is needed and why, if it is at all possible. Go gurgle in your tourists' fish-tanks some more while desperately pretending that you are Jacques Cousteau, Bozo.
From: tony cooper on 7 Aug 2010 00:15
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 21:55:59 -0500, Superzooms Still Win <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >(For the incredulously affected basement-life trolls: How about that, he >even knows about the printing arts! I spent five years as chief editor for >a series of books at one point. Where does this person's experience and >knowledge ever end? .... it doesn't, deal with it.) The lies just don't hold up. You've said you worked as a bartender for several years, I think there have been other claims of jobs, and now you've worked as chief editor for five years. Yet, you claim to have retired at 24. You need to keep your stories straight. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |