The reason for letting the detail be in the image was almost exactly what you describe. I�ve always learnt to remove everything but the main object, but sometimes this leaves esthetic, but empty pictures. So I wanted too leave some clues about the place and situation, in a home, with little brother watching, without loosing the abstract shape. I guess there is a minimalist disorder in the image :-)
Regarding the title, the picture was shown another place without a title, so more was left to the details.
Thanks again for taking you time. I appreciated this comment a lot.
DagT
P� 18. apr. 2004 kl. 21.22 skrev Mark Cassino:
The sense of motion in the main subject is great - very cool!
In regards to the details along the edges - they seem to provide more of a set and setting than just a plain wood floor, so they seem to add to the shot, but I don't know if they really contribute a lot to the image. Without the details we'd know nothing about this spinning person - maybe they are hanging from the yardarm on a boat. With the details there is a _sense_ of setting and we know that they are not alone, but there are no clues that really set it in a theatrical setting. Your title does more to set the scene in that regard than the visual details. But, including them is the right choice, IMO. (One exception - the white bar on the red carpet is more of a distraction than anything else, since it is not recognizable as anything in particular.)
Since the details were left in intentionally - what is the intent behind them?
- MCC
At 06:43 PM 4/18/2004 +0200, you wrote:I�m a little late, so I have to use an old one (2 weeks :-).
I have had very different reactions to this. The details along the edges of the photo are there intentionally, but not everybody like them.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2295716&size=lg
DagT
-----
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
http://www.markcassino.com
-----
