[Leica] C&C solicited for show entry

[robertmeier at usjet.net (Robert Meier)]

Howard,

I like them all, but it's the 4th one, horizontal 14x11, that really does it 
for me.  That format gives full play to the sinuous curves of the surf and 
water.  Great work.

Robert

On Dec 24, 2011, at 9:55 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