P3D Re: Can't see it? Is it there?

[jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gabriel Jacob)]

Mark Dottle writes:
>I began entering the images that appealed to my friends and family.
>I would explain the faults with the image and they would insist that
>I enter it anyway!  I say this with all respect to the theory camp,
>but the emotional intangibles associated with a photograph cannot be
>plotted and measured.

This shows that the judges placed more emphasis on aesthetics
rather than on technical aspects of the images. It's much
easier to quantify technical aspects rather than artistic.

There seems to be some confusion as to "Can't See it? Is it there"
vs. the "Too much depth" thread. These are two different issues.
Variables such as determining depth using math vs. using judgment
to determine the most pleasing depth is DIFFERENT from not
consciously seeing the technical shortcomings of poor optics or
other technical aspects of the image such as mounting, keystone
distortion, poor exposure, and a whole slew of other sins! ;-)

>An image created by serendipity, the fortunate circumstance
>of being there with a camera and catching something different,
>something that prompts a second and third look......those are
>the images that are unforgettable. I believe I have taken one
>such image, and this is the type of work that motivates me to
>capture the image first, then use theories and math to prove
>my assumptions that I either know or DO NOT know what I am doing.

No problem there, but I should repeat that using math to increase
aesthetics is different from using math or whatever to increase
technical aspects.

Gabriel


------------------------------