mike wilson wrote: >"Funding led" means 'rearranging' your principles to attract the highest amount of funding. As you say, digital images work best when they are lacking in detail and graphical in nature. If your previous images were more inclined to hold a lot of detail and subtle nuance, changing the output to more graphical appearance in order to sell more might be construed as being funding led.
Ah, I understand now. That isn't what I was doing, though. Rather, it was selecting material amost appropriate to the medium and the venue. I noticed years ago when viewing the PUG that some images that presented very intriguing thumbnails were disappointing when I saw the image at a larger size. Conversely, some images that didn't seem like much as thumbnails looked wonderful when seen larger. (I probably missed some excellent images when I was short of time, simply because the thumbnail didn't look promising.) And I know from personal experience that there are images which don't work well as either thumbnails or large web images but need to be seen as prints. But there are some images which have a strong graphical design elements and which also contain a lot of detail. In other words, they stand up well as thumbnails and in larger display formats. When displaying in a web-based venue where the quantity of images you can present is limited, it only makes sense to try for these "best of both worlds" photographs. I see this as a good way of forcing myself to up my own standards, too. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
