> On Nov 22, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Steve Cottrell <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 22/11/16, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> Love the photograph, Cotty, but the rendering in the principal area of >> interest seems a bit too dark. I'd want to lighten up the area around >> the bridegroom's face and shoulder a little bit so that I could see his >> expression and gesture. There's enough meat in the photo, even the >> online JPEG, to do it and it makes the photo much more compelling, IMO. > > Wow - how interesting. > > My interpretation is totally the opposite. I find that my interest is > only in the faces of the men doing the work. In fact I found myself not > caring at all what they were even doing - just that they were > concentrating with such intent. I have other shots that show the group > as a proper 'four' but chose this one for the very reason you point out > - that the object of their attention is dark, almost insignificant. In > this case, I found the principal are of interest was the three men > standing (their faces) with the sitter a quick glance and nothing more. > > As Spock would say - fascinating. > > Thanks for the comments.
You're welcome. Hmm. I looked at it again. The lines of everyone's eyes, the lines made by their arms, all converge down at their hands near the bridegrooms head and face, which is plunged in darkness and hard to see. As much as their faces might be a principle subject, the lines and framing all pull my eyes away from their eyes and faces and into their hands. Cropped with their faces lower in the frame, I'd agree with you, but as it sits that's not where my eye comes to rest. It is a fine shot, however you want to analyze it! :-) G -- 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.
