[Leica] C&C solicited for show entry

[ricc at embarqmail.com (Ric Carter)]

like 8x10, but there's not a lot of difference

ric


On Dec 24, 2011, at 10:54 PM, Howard Ritter wrote:

> Hello All?
> 
> I'm planning to enter my first show ever, the annual Healing Arts show put 
> on by and for the local medical community in March next year, open to 
> entries from the graphic arts. I selected a photo I took at Pictured Rocks 
> National Lakeshore of Lake Superior on the UP of Michigan on a short trip 
> there last year. The subject is a wave breaking on a multilayered 
> sandstone shorline. (OK, OK, I can hear your eyes rolling now. What new 
> way is there to show a wave breaking on a shore? Well, I think this is 
> one.) Because the purpose of the trip was not to go to Pictured Rocks or 
> to take photographs, I wasn't expecting to encounter any subject that 
> would benefit from FF, so the only camera I took was my Lumix GF1. Lesson 
> learned (not for the first time). The GF1 is a great little camera, but 
> the degree of the crop here really would have benefitted from the larger 
> sensor and greater number of photosites of a FF camera.
> 
> The viewpoint is an observation platform about 300 feet above the water, 
> at the top of a nearly vertical cliff, explaining the perspective. I have 
> uploaded four photos to the Gallery 
> (http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/hlritter/Fotos/). One is the full frame, 
> taken at 45mm (90 equiv) containing a good deal of foreground shrubbery. I 
> started to crop down to clean the worst of this out, but as I worked, I 
> realized that the picture works best (for me) as an almost abstract 
> composition with the shore, the breaking wave, and the colors of the lake 
> bottom forming a nicely proportioned and colorful array. I think this is 
> an unusual perspective for this subject, and is the reason why I think 
> it's worth showing. The other three are crops.
> 
> The first photo is the full frame. The second is the largest crop I could 
> get that contained only a small amount of foreground clutter that I could 
> PS out (some of which I've already done) and preserved all of the green 
> water. The problem with the core crop is that I don't like the near-square 
> proportions much?but I like all of the parts of the composition. The other 
> two are crops in conventional print proportions, each using one of the 
> full dimensions of the core crop. The 11x14 is the proportion I find most 
> pleasing, but even though it occupies the full horizontal dimension of the 
> core crop, it leaves out a lot of the beautiful green waters and some 
> shoreline detail.  The 8x10 is about as near-square as I find pleasing to 
> look at, and includes all the water, but its portrait orientation is at a 
> right angle to the flow of the picture elements. But I don't think that's 
> a deal-killer, and the 8x10 may be better in that it comes closer to 
> conforming to the rule of thirds. And I like the off-center location of 
> the most prominent part of the wave in the 8x10 crop, as well as the 
> inclusion of more interesting texture and detail on the shore. Right now I 
> favor the 8x10.
> 
> I'd appreciate C&C, especially on what might look best framed and on a 
> wall?the square core crop, the 8x10, or the 11x14. Or any other cropping 
> and proportioning suggestions.
> 
> Thanks in advance.  Merry Christmas (and Happy Hanukkah) to all, and to 
> all a good night!
> 
> ?howard
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information