I'm looking at the ebook, and finding it a vast source of frustration with ebook readers. On the nook, I can't rotate the book so I'm seeing a horizontally formatted book on a vertically formatted screen. In neither the nook, nor Adobe Digital Editions on my mac can I adjust the size of the photo. On the nook I can't make is smaller, or for that matter figure out how to rotate, or move the picture from side to side. On the iMac, I can't make the photo any larger than 3.5x5.5 horizontal or 3.5x4.5 vertical.
The mat is pretty, but it's not what I bought the book for. On Apr 13, 2011, at 8:36 AM, Darren Addy wrote: > > > Discussion point No. 1: The page format and how it effects the size of > the photos. > > Since the page layout was done in landscape mode, the way the book was > designed made horizonal photographs appear much larger than vertical > photographs, which I find unfortunate for the vertical photos and the > photographers that submitted them. I would much rather see the > photographs on "equal footing" with one another and presented in the > same size. This is easily, and attractively done by using either a > square page format, or selecting/creating a square portion of a > portrait or landscape formatted page in which to present the > photograph. (The square being, in effect, the mat for the photo.) I suspect that the layout of the ebook is different from the hard copy. That being said, I wish that the vertical photos used more of the vertical space. > > If you must use a rectangular page format (either vert. or horiz.) > then you could use some of the extra space beside the square image > area for the title or a colored box with a few of the funny quotes on > each page - rather than saving them for multiple pages at the end. > > Discussion point No. 2: The "mats" around the photographs and how they > effect the size of the photos. That would be affect, not effect. > > I found the majority of the mats HUGELY distracting from the > photograph itself. I understand that most, if not all, were taken from > an element of the photograph itself which was blown up to create a > color/texture, but I would argue that first and foremost the > photographs themselves should be the "stars" of the page but it seemed > more like it was "look at the neat mats". They competed for attention > with the photograph itself, in most cases and did not compliment them. > The best mats (IMHO) were the most minimalistic mats such as those on: > Christine's "My Nephew, Akira" > Frank's "Long Trip Home" > and > César's "Freeport Church" > > In any event, I would rather see the photographs presented as > physically large as possible on the page, and the mat provided another > element to downsize them, which I found disappointing. I kind of have to agree here. If I could enlarge them so that they filled the screen, I think that the layout looks wonderful, it's just frustrating that the photos themselves come off as not much larger than big thumbnails. I think that this is mostly a limitation of ebooks, and not a criticism of Mark's design work. > > Discussion point No. 3: The edge treatments around the photographs themselves. > > I don't know if this was added in the book design or if they were in > the photographs submitted by the photographers, but I found the edge > treatments again terribly distracting from the photograph itself. An > attempt to "gild the lily", as they say. ( > http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/gild-the-lily.html ) Less > distracting, but still unwelcome (IMHO) are the use of drop shadow or > use of the cutout treatment to make the photograph look as if it was > off the page or sunk behind the mat. You can see that I am all about > the image itself. The book standards should be no different than a > museum's display standards, for example. Mats are usually white. Or > black. But usually white. With no texture. > > Discussion point No. 4: Everybody gets an image in. > > This year's book is apparently the largest yet. I expect this to be a > problem (if not a nice problem) as the PDML membership grows - which > it will with the truly great cameras for the money like the K-x, K-r > and K-5 that we have to choose from now. More PDML members will result > in more submissions and if one image is automatically accepted from > each photographer then the book will continue to grow larger (also > meaning more work from all concerned). > > I also think that it would mean more to be included if you didn't > automatically get one image included, just by virtue of submitting > one. I think a side benefit would be a stronger book by virtue of the > elimination of weaker images. I disagree with the above sentiment. As someone said, that it is display of the PDML, not a competition among the PDML. > > Feel free to argue/discuss one or all of the points above. The above > represents just one man's opinion (mine) which is worth every penny > you paid for it. > : ) > All in all, I think that the design is stunning, and the photos are wonderful. My only complaint is that I can't actually see the photos very well in the ebook format. -- Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est -- 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.
