Thank you Igor, Christine and Bruce! Some interesting comments to respond to from Igor:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Igor Roshchin <[email protected]> wrote: > ... This photo caught my eye in two ways: > First, it is rather subtle, like some watercolor paintings, > with a very interesting combination and juxtaposition of the almost > monotone (albeit toned) feature. I like it. > (And if I were to print it I'd try watercolor paper. I would consider > minimalistic frame or alternatively, I'd print on one of those > fancy/funky papers that have some texture (but not canvas), > or just on watercolor paper with the mask producing wavy edges.) I usually print on one of the fine art matte surface papers, and for this one I'd pick something with a little surface texture (like Somerset Velvet, etc). The paper could be debossed or the edges deckled for this kind of image successfully too, I think, but it would have to be in combination with other similarly treated photos. > Second, I liked simplicity, but something was bothering my eye, > especially in the Flickr lightbox presentation (with the black > background). > After seeing it against the standard white background of Flickr, > I liked it better, but then I appreciated it better against the black > background. So, I cannot figure out what exactly bothers me in the > lightbox presentation (as linked). Maybe it's just the size that is a > bit too small that way. Dunno, can't say much here. The 'lightbox' viewer mode sizes to the browser window, so much depends on the browser and the system and display you're using it's hard to imagine what might be the issue. > However, and this is different, the two horizontal streaks at the top > left, just above the most left pod, do distract me. In addition to their > a bit rough texture, they go against > the preferential vertical lines in a "metal scribe on glass" sound way. This is always a bit of a challenge when I'm working with the Polaroid. These buggers produce prints which are tough to scan properly, and the prints themselves have interesting surface blemishes and textures the result of being an old, used camera and a curious film. The two artifacts you are pointing out are there in the original, they're part of the way the camera squeegeed the developer into the image sandwich. The image process made them a bit more noticeable. I could tone them down or clone them out, but there are so many other artifacts of the print in the image that once I start working on defects like this I really have to figure a point at which to stop... One of the interesting thing about working film and prints like this compared to digital is that the blemishes and defects of film recording media become a part of the image qualities that you are reaching for. How much to leave in, how much to remove ... all part of the magic. I usually make final decisions on this kind of stuff when I go to make exhibition prints, because then I'm working with how the image translates into similar media. On the aforementioned textured matte paper, these things would likely be much less noticeable. Fun stuff! Gotta load up another film pack and carry the camera again ... :-) -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- 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.
