To get back to the, as yet unstated, question at hand, though ... > > How do I get better at doing my own gallery editing? I'm not talking > about the fine points of bending Photoshop to my will. I'm talking > about choosing the images that end up in the gallery for a collection > and the characteristics of the gallery itself. >
it helps to know why you were taking the pictures in the first place, then try to show that. As far as quality goes, sort them into about 4 categories: technically sound but not a good picture; good picture that I like but might not show others; good enough to show others; deserves to win a Pulitzer. A 5th category (you won't have any photos this good) is A Rockwell. The photos you show should be from the top category (or possibly the top and next below it). If they don't serve the purpose of the gallery, don't show them in the gallery, however good they are - you can make a different gallery for those. > Stuff like ... how do I figure out the "proper" size for the final > gallery for any particular collection? Small and perfect is better than large with mixed quality. Go for punch. I tend to try and show a narrative of some sort. For instance, in the shots I took of the Tour de France I wanted to show the crowd building, then the bikes passing, then the whole thing ebbing away. I wanted to try and build some sense of anticipation before the bikes arrived, and show the relaxed atmosphere of the event, so the pictures had to contribute to that in some way. Another thing that helps is to consider the classic Life shooting plan: 1. Intro /overall establishing shot 2. Medium, closing in on one activity or group 3. Close-up or detail 4. Portrait 5. Interaction 6. Signature - summarizing the story. 7. Sequence / series 8. Clincher Take a look at some of the classic photo essays - they often fit this general structure. > Is "mo' bigger" "mo' better"? > Is small beautiful? I know the answers to these questions > are largely > subjective, but I want to draw out the various subjectives on > the list > and try to get a sense of sensibilities, if you will. > There is a Goldilocks zone which is just right. People won't spend time looking through hundreds of samey pictures online. I tend to think that about 20 pictures is a reasonable rule-of-thumb maximum in most situations. > Are there techniques that can help me "get outside myself" > when judging > my own shots? Help to diminish the emotional attachment I > have to some > images so that I can view them more objectively? Make the gallery more important than the individual pictures and only include a picture if it genuinely fits the theme. Put some time between yourself and the shooting when you look at the pictures all together. Photographers often stick prints on a wall where they can look at them a lot, get used to seeing them, and start to get a feel for what really works, and what is just their emotional attachment. Have someone else take a look and accept their objective but wise judgement. -- Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug Franklin > Sent: 10 October 2007 04:47 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Culling and Editing (Long) > > Howdy, folks, > [...] -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
