Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Pulling Strings With The 70-200 VR2!!

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Pulling Strings With The 70-200 VR2!!

 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2010
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 17:38:55 -0400, "Peter"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:12:33 -0400, "Peter"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>

>
>>>
>>>I think that type of Photoshopping would be unethical as journalism. Not
>>>so,
>>>if presented as art.
>>>Journalism should represent unaltered events. the people there are part of
>>>the event. I would not make the same claim if the image was presented as a
>>>pictorial.

>>
>> I make a distinction - a significant distinction - between "Street"
>> and "PJ" (Photo Journalism).
>>
>> Street photography captures life as we see it...a man lighting a
>> cigarette, people entering and leaving a subway entrance, a
>> shopkeeper, a woman holding a baby. In street, we look for
>> interesting scenes that usually involve people, but we capture them in
>> whatever environment we find them. PJ captures newsworthy
>> scenes...firemen fighting a fire, a potential suicide on ledge, and -
>> of course - war scenes.
>>
>> In street, enthusiasts really don't think that distractions detract
>> from the photo. A trash can in the photo? Leave it if the trash can
>> is the natural environment. We don't change backgrounds or
>> significantly alter the image, but some very minor editing is
>> acceptable. Usually, though, editing is limited to the processing
>> steps. I like high contrast black and white, so my photos might have
>> more contrast than the actual scene.
>>
>> In PJ, it is unethical to edit in any way that changes what is
>> pictured. Even cropping is frowned on if the cropping takes out
>> something that might change the viewer's perception of what is
>> portrayed.
>>
>> What you call "pictorial" (not a term known to me) is a completely
>> different type of photography. There, we look for interesting scenes
>> and we are free to make some minor alterations like taking out that
>> trash can.
>>
>> I'm more in favor of taking out than I am in adding in. I have no
>> problem with taking out a distraction, but I can't go along with
>> adding in something to make it more interesting. If you have a photo
>> of a bristling dog in an attack position, you can take out something
>> in the background but you can't add in a cat as the dog's source of
>> irritation.

>
>
>OK
>It's good to have definitions so we understand. Perhaps because I don't do a
>lot of street photography, I really don't distinguish between PJ and street.
>You are certainly correct in the context of your distinction about no
>cropping in PJ.
>
>I define pictorial as any image that has been seriously manipulated. I have
>no problem taking out of putting in. I will frequently change the sky, add
>birds, etc. I will also do full or partial partial color reversals. I do not
>represent any image as an accurate portrayal of the scene, unless it is. In
>our club I had presented an image of a lighthouse. the judge commented that
>it would be a stronger image if reversed. Under our local rules it would be
>permitted.
>
>Since this is a hobby, I think it's OK to do whatever degree of manipulation
>makes you comfortable.


I'm gin player, and a money gin player. Not big money, but the game
doesn't interest me unless it's so-much-a-point. The first thing gin
players do, before the cards are shuffled, is define the rules. Is it
knock, and is there a maximum count to knock? Deal one more card to
the non-dealer or the same number to both players and turn a card with
a choice taking it or drawing from the deck? Hollywood? How much a
point, how much a box, and what bonus for a schnitz? And so on.

Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
the "Creative" group.

Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.

I think I used this before as an example, but on this shot I'll
process it to have the man facing right (to the view) no matter which
way he's facing in the capture.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...5_sZDGm-XL.jpg


So what do we call the photograph that is not street, not PJ, not
pictorial/creative, not a landscape? Just an interesting photo of
people, places, or things?




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2010
"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...


> Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
> have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
> camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
> the "Creative" group.
>
> Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
> category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
> gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
> flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
> right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.


I cannot agree that flopping the image is OK in any category. If I am
presenting a lighthouse at sunrise, it certainly would be misleading to
shoot
the lighthouse from the South and invert it so that the ocean is on the
left. If I am presenting the same image as what you call creative, then I
have no problem with an image reversal. Similarly, as I understand the PSA
rules on nature photography, image reversal is not permitted. I am not
saying I agree, I am simply stating my understanding of them:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n31978458/



>
> I think I used this before as an example, but on this shot I'll
> process it to have the man facing right (to the view) no matter which
> way he's facing in the capture.
>
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...5_sZDGm-XL.jpg
>
>
> So what do we call the photograph that is not street, not PJ, not
> pictorial/creative, not a landscape? Just an interesting photo of
> people, places, or things?
>





--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2010
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:49:57 -0400, "Peter"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news(E-Mail Removed).. .
>
>
>> Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
>> have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
>> camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
>> the "Creative" group.
>>
>> Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
>> category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
>> gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
>> flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
>> right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.

>
>I cannot agree that flopping the image is OK in any category. If I am
>presenting a lighthouse at sunrise, it certainly would be misleading to
>shoot
>the lighthouse from the South and invert it so that the ocean is on the
>left.


I think that's really in a different category than what's being
discussed. When there's something in the image that doesn't make
sense if you flop it horizontally, then you don't do it because it
doesn't make sense. You don't not do it because of the rules; you
don't do it because the result doesn't make sense.

You have a cat sitting on a sidewalk, a toddler taking his/her first
steps, or something where there's no landmark of direction, then
flopping doesn't change anything. Of course, there'd have to be a
reason to flop the image.

Flop a flower photo and no blood, no foul.


> If I am presenting the same image as what you call creative, then I
>have no problem with an image reversal. Similarly, as I understand the PSA
>rules on nature photography, image reversal is not permitted. I am not
>saying I agree, I am simply stating my understanding of them:
>
>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n31978458/
>

I don't see what that has to do with it. Those are PSA's rules for
photos submitted for competitions or exhibitions. My club has a rule
that photos submitted for competition must be no larger than 1400
pixels on the longest side and the Shoot-In says no larger than 1024
on the longest side. Different groups, different rules. If the image
isn't for any particular group or publication, then only ethics and
common sense applies.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2010
"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:49:57 -0400, "Peter"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>
>>
>>> Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
>>> have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
>>> camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
>>> the "Creative" group.
>>>
>>> Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
>>> category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
>>> gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
>>> flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
>>> right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.

>>
>>I cannot agree that flopping the image is OK in any category. If I am
>>presenting a lighthouse at sunrise, it certainly would be misleading to
>>shoot
>>the lighthouse from the South and invert it so that the ocean is on the
>>left.

>
> I think that's really in a different category than what's being
> discussed. When there's something in the image that doesn't make
> sense if you flop it horizontally, then you don't do it because it
> doesn't make sense. You don't not do it because of the rules; you
> don't do it because the result doesn't make sense.
>
> You have a cat sitting on a sidewalk, a toddler taking his/her first
> steps, or something where there's no landmark of direction, then
> flopping doesn't change anything. Of course, there'd have to be a
> reason to flop the image.
>
> Flop a flower photo and no blood, no foul.
>
>
>> If I am presenting the same image as what you call creative, then I
>>have no problem with an image reversal. Similarly, as I understand the PSA
>>rules on nature photography, image reversal is not permitted. I am not
>>saying I agree, I am simply stating my understanding of them:
>>
>>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n31978458/
>>

> I don't see what that has to do with it. Those are PSA's rules for
> photos submitted for competitions or exhibitions. My club has a rule
> that photos submitted for competition must be no larger than 1400
> pixels on the longest side and the Shoot-In says no larger than 1024
> on the longest side. Different groups, different rules. If the image
> isn't for any particular group or publication, then only ethics and
> common sense applies.



Your last sentence is exactly what I have been saying. My objection was to
your statement that
"Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
category."
I was simply giving some examples of categories to which your above
statement is inapplicable.

Locally we are having a big debate over whether to add a nature category
that will be governed by PSA rules, which are pretty much the standard in
what I would guess is the vast majority of competitions and exhibitions.
Yet, just as in golf, there are local rules, that differ.

In your gin games, local rules may differ and need to be understood, prior
to commencing play.

I have had modest success playing poker and blackjack. I will not play until
I know all the local rules. If I do not like them I do not play.



--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2010
"Crapshooter's Education 101" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:20:20 -0400, tony cooper
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:49:57 -0400, "Peter"
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
>>>> have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
>>>> camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
>>>> the "Creative" group.
>>>>
>>>> Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
>>>> category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
>>>> gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
>>>> flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
>>>> right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.
>>>
>>>I cannot agree that flopping the image is OK in any category. If I am
>>>presenting a lighthouse at sunrise, it certainly would be misleading to
>>>shoot
>>>the lighthouse from the South and invert it so that the ocean is on the
>>>left.

>>
>>I think that's really in a different category than what's being
>>discussed. When there's something in the image that doesn't make
>>sense if you flop it horizontally, then you don't do it because it
>>doesn't make sense. You don't not do it because of the rules; you
>>don't do it because the result doesn't make sense.
>>
>>You have a cat sitting on a sidewalk, a toddler taking his/her first
>>steps, or something where there's no landmark of direction, then
>>flopping doesn't change anything. Of course, there'd have to be a
>>reason to flop the image.
>>
>>Flop a flower photo and no blood, no foul.

>
> You don't know much about portrait photography, do you. (duh, like that's
> any surprise) Flipping a face left/right can drastically alter the
> appearance of someone. The face someone sees in a mirror is very different
> than the one they'll see in a photograph. Few faces are perfectly
> symmetric. Take a photo of anyone, split it 50/50 down the middle. Now
> duplicate each half, so you have one face comprised of two right sides,
> another comprised of two left sides. You'll see just how very different
> the
> left and right sides truly are.



So you are saying that if I shoot a person's left side and flop the image, I
will have an image of his right side?

Interesting concept.
--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Conway
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2010

"Peter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4c5b6bb9$0$5486$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com...
> "Crapshooter's Education 101" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:20:20 -0400, tony cooper
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:49:57 -0400, "Peter"
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>news(E-Mail Removed) m...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
>>>>> have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
>>>>> camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
>>>>> the "Creative" group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
>>>>> category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
>>>>> gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
>>>>> flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
>>>>> right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.
>>>>
>>>>I cannot agree that flopping the image is OK in any category. If I am
>>>>presenting a lighthouse at sunrise, it certainly would be misleading to
>>>>shoot
>>>>the lighthouse from the South and invert it so that the ocean is on the
>>>>left.
>>>
>>>I think that's really in a different category than what's being
>>>discussed. When there's something in the image that doesn't make
>>>sense if you flop it horizontally, then you don't do it because it
>>>doesn't make sense. You don't not do it because of the rules; you
>>>don't do it because the result doesn't make sense.
>>>
>>>You have a cat sitting on a sidewalk, a toddler taking his/her first
>>>steps, or something where there's no landmark of direction, then
>>>flopping doesn't change anything. Of course, there'd have to be a
>>>reason to flop the image.
>>>
>>>Flop a flower photo and no blood, no foul.

>>
>> You don't know much about portrait photography, do you. (duh, like that's
>> any surprise) Flipping a face left/right can drastically alter the
>> appearance of someone. The face someone sees in a mirror is very
>> different
>> than the one they'll see in a photograph. Few faces are perfectly
>> symmetric. Take a photo of anyone, split it 50/50 down the middle. Now
>> duplicate each half, so you have one face comprised of two right sides,
>> another comprised of two left sides. You'll see just how very different
>> the
>> left and right sides truly are.

>
>
> So you are saying that if I shoot a person's left side and flop the image,
> I will have an image of his right side?
>
> Interesting concept.
> --

I think he's saying that if you flop the image the person's left side now
looking like the right side will not equal the person's actual right side.


 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2010
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 21:09:55 -0400, "Peter"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:49:57 -0400, "Peter"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
>>>> have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
>>>> camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
>>>> the "Creative" group.
>>>>
>>>> Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
>>>> category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
>>>> gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
>>>> flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
>>>> right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.
>>>
>>>I cannot agree that flopping the image is OK in any category. If I am
>>>presenting a lighthouse at sunrise, it certainly would be misleading to
>>>shoot
>>>the lighthouse from the South and invert it so that the ocean is on the
>>>left.

>>
>> I think that's really in a different category than what's being
>> discussed. When there's something in the image that doesn't make
>> sense if you flop it horizontally, then you don't do it because it
>> doesn't make sense. You don't not do it because of the rules; you
>> don't do it because the result doesn't make sense.
>>
>> You have a cat sitting on a sidewalk, a toddler taking his/her first
>> steps, or something where there's no landmark of direction, then
>> flopping doesn't change anything. Of course, there'd have to be a
>> reason to flop the image.
>>
>> Flop a flower photo and no blood, no foul.
>>
>>
>>> If I am presenting the same image as what you call creative, then I
>>>have no problem with an image reversal. Similarly, as I understand the PSA
>>>rules on nature photography, image reversal is not permitted. I am not
>>>saying I agree, I am simply stating my understanding of them:
>>>
>>>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n31978458/
>>>

>> I don't see what that has to do with it. Those are PSA's rules for
>> photos submitted for competitions or exhibitions. My club has a rule
>> that photos submitted for competition must be no larger than 1400
>> pixels on the longest side and the Shoot-In says no larger than 1024
>> on the longest side. Different groups, different rules. If the image
>> isn't for any particular group or publication, then only ethics and
>> common sense applies.

>
>
>Your last sentence is exactly what I have been saying. My objection was to
>your statement that
>"Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
>category."
>I was simply giving some examples of categories to which your above
>statement is inapplicable.


It would only inapplicable in certain categories *within* certain
groups if the group has categories. In the group PSA, it seems that
the prohibition is across the board, although someone might argue that
horizontal flopping is not rearranging elements since the elements of
the photo remain in the exact same relationship to the other elements
in the photo. An element is a part, and flopping affects the whole.

Be an interesting question to bring up to PSA, but not one to bring up
in your club. Never a good idea to start a debate in your own club.




>


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2010
On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:12:44 -0500, Crapshooter's Education 101
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:20:20 -0400, tony cooper
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:49:57 -0400, "Peter"
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
>>>> have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
>>>> camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
>>>> the "Creative" group.
>>>>
>>>> Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
>>>> category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
>>>> gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
>>>> flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
>>>> right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.
>>>
>>>I cannot agree that flopping the image is OK in any category. If I am
>>>presenting a lighthouse at sunrise, it certainly would be misleading to
>>>shoot
>>>the lighthouse from the South and invert it so that the ocean is on the
>>>left.

>>
>>I think that's really in a different category than what's being
>>discussed. When there's something in the image that doesn't make
>>sense if you flop it horizontally, then you don't do it because it
>>doesn't make sense. You don't not do it because of the rules; you
>>don't do it because the result doesn't make sense.
>>
>>You have a cat sitting on a sidewalk, a toddler taking his/her first
>>steps, or something where there's no landmark of direction, then
>>flopping doesn't change anything. Of course, there'd have to be a
>>reason to flop the image.
>>
>>Flop a flower photo and no blood, no foul.

>
>You don't know much about portrait photography, do you. (duh, like that's
>any surprise) Flipping a face left/right can drastically alter the
>appearance of someone. The face someone sees in a mirror is very different
>than the one they'll see in a photograph. Few faces are perfectly
>symmetric. Take a photo of anyone, split it 50/50 down the middle. Now
>duplicate each half, so you have one face comprised of two right sides,
>another comprised of two left sides. You'll see just how very different the
>left and right sides truly are.


I know that reading something tires your lips, but do try. A full
frontal portrait would not (a) make sense to flop (read what I wrote
above) and (b) there wouldn't be a reason to flop it (read what I
wrote above). A flopped profile or semi-profile shot does not alter
the appearance.

There's a (c), but I may have over-taxed your mental capacity to
follow by going to a second paragraph. The discussion is about photos
submitted in competitions. Ninty-nine percent of the viewers won't
know the subject enough to know that the mole is on the left side or
the right side, let alone well enough to spot asymmetric variances.

I know you think that a flopped profile shows the other side of the
face, but it really doesn't. That's why they had you face left and
then right when they took your photographs at the station house.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2010
"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>>Your last sentence is exactly what I have been saying. My objection was to
>>your statement that
>>"Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
>>category."
>>I was simply giving some examples of categories to which your above
>>statement is inapplicable.

>
> It would only inapplicable in certain categories *within* certain
> groups if the group has categories. In the group PSA, it seems that
> the prohibition is across the board, although someone might argue that
> horizontal flopping is not rearranging elements since the elements of
> the photo remain in the exact same relationship to the other elements
> in the photo. An element is a part, and flopping affects the whole.
>


As I understand it, PSA only has strict rules in the nature and PJ
categories.



> Be an interesting question to bring up to PSA, but not one to bring up
> in your club. Never a good idea to start a debate in your own club.
>





The issue is not local to our club. It started from the body of which our
club is a member. Our club voted down the idea, but somehow our negative
vote was recorded as a positive vote. The board of our governing body
resigned over the issue.
We are a fairly small club, 65 active members. We have regular field trips,
that include at least one meal. so far we have had three this week. Many
members show up just for Sunday morning breakfast and then just go home.
Several of our members are going on a three week field trip in September. I
agree we try not to start debates, since most of us get along reasonably
well. Somehow our rule changes come about by consensus and are then
formalized.


--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2010
"Tim Conway" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:i3fqak$isk$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>
> "Peter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4c5b6bb9$0$5486$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com...
>> "Crapshooter's Education 101" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:20:20 -0400, tony cooper
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:49:57 -0400, "Peter"
>>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>news(E-Mail Removed) om...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Defining terms and rules is essential for communication. What you
>>>>>> have described as "Pictorial" is what we enter as "Creative" in my
>>>>>> camera club. You can add the cat to the dog photo if you enter it in
>>>>>> the "Creative" group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Flopping an image horizontally would be perfectly acceptable in any
>>>>>> category. I think this has been discussed here before, but a figure
>>>>>> gazing off into space with leading space on one side, could be
>>>>>> flopped. Some say that the empty space should be to the viewer's
>>>>>> right. I'm not sure this is a big deal, but I do it that way.
>>>>>
>>>>>I cannot agree that flopping the image is OK in any category. If I am
>>>>>presenting a lighthouse at sunrise, it certainly would be misleading to
>>>>>shoot
>>>>>the lighthouse from the South and invert it so that the ocean is on the
>>>>>left.
>>>>
>>>>I think that's really in a different category than what's being
>>>>discussed. When there's something in the image that doesn't make
>>>>sense if you flop it horizontally, then you don't do it because it
>>>>doesn't make sense. You don't not do it because of the rules; you
>>>>don't do it because the result doesn't make sense.
>>>>
>>>>You have a cat sitting on a sidewalk, a toddler taking his/her first
>>>>steps, or something where there's no landmark of direction, then
>>>>flopping doesn't change anything. Of course, there'd have to be a
>>>>reason to flop the image.
>>>>
>>>>Flop a flower photo and no blood, no foul.
>>>
>>> You don't know much about portrait photography, do you. (duh, like
>>> that's
>>> any surprise) Flipping a face left/right can drastically alter the
>>> appearance of someone. The face someone sees in a mirror is very
>>> different
>>> than the one they'll see in a photograph. Few faces are perfectly
>>> symmetric. Take a photo of anyone, split it 50/50 down the middle. Now
>>> duplicate each half, so you have one face comprised of two right sides,
>>> another comprised of two left sides. You'll see just how very different
>>> the
>>> left and right sides truly are.

>>
>>
>> So you are saying that if I shoot a person's left side and flop the
>> image, I will have an image of his right side?
>>
>> Interesting concept.
>> --

> I think he's saying that if you flop the image the person's left side now
> looking like the right side will not equal the person's actual right side.
>



A few hours ago, I lost my ability to read minds over the Internet.


--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Pulling Strings With The 70-200 VR2!! Bruce Digital Photography 3 08-03-2010 12:27 AM
Pulling values from strings Michael Furmaniuk Ruby 4 04-15-2009 12:46 PM
Strings, Strings and Damned Strings Ben C Programming 14 06-24-2006 05:09 AM
Pulling strings gangle Computer Support 2 09-16-2004 03:04 PM
Pulling DataSet From WebMethod -- Possible? Temp ASP .Net 1 08-11-2003 05:13 AM



Advertisments