"Draco" wrote in message
oups.com...


Okay I'll buy that one. But even most have a visual point of focas.
The human brain likes to go to a point. Weither it is there or not.



An image like that is supposed to be printed larger and viewed form a
different
distance. Yes, it will hold attention.


I'm sorry but it doesn't. Anything printed large will hold the
attention of the viewers. More in the way of, "What was this person
thinking. Printing this so big?"
An image will hold the person attention no matter what size as long as
the image can grab and hold that person. For me, this one doesn't. I
keep looking at it and it doesn't sing to me like several of Daniel's
other works do.
It is a mess of lines and light. The eye keeps being drawn to the
lower right. The large black lines keep drawing you away from the
light area. Yet the thinner lines drag your eye every where. Such
confusion brings not a wonderment of "What is it?", just a headache
and a desire to move away to something else.


Daniel these are just my feelings and opinion on this image. You have
already proved you are a excelent photographer and will continue to
be. My words not withstanding.

Keep at it.

Andrey Tarasevich , keep challenging the status of opinions. It keeps
us on our toes and makes for better photographers. Keep being polite
and firm in your visions and you will do well.



Draco


Western Culture Humans scan a document on presentation from the upper left
to the lower right. Only then does any point of interest (call it point of
focus) receive closer attention.

This is why magazine layout artists us "pullouts" on the mid to lower
portion of the right had side of a page when they attempt to capture a
reader's attention. Photographs created with the same concept in mind, do
not need a point of focus and may in fact, have several obscure points.

What is important and missing from Daniel's picture is a "return" point to
which you are drawn after scanning the picture from left to right, top to
bottom and it lacks small detail to keep you intrigued as you go over the
picture again. I am of the opinion Daniel has not grasped the significance
of these matters in any of his photos and produces the odd good picture not
by design but by accident.

What I'm saying is most ably demonstrated in a landscape image you find
attractive but are unsure exactly why. Invert the image and it simply
doesn't "look right". Go back then, and you can see the parts of the
composition that made you think it was attractive.

Look at this picture of Matt Clara's.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/26091584 It is composed to perfectly lead
you to the item of importance. So much so, that you miss seeing the people
in the jeep on the other side of the river. Invert the picture and the
effect is entirely lost, making the people in the jeep much more prominent.

Doug