counter customizable free hit
About This Website

This blog is intended to showcase my pictures or those of other photographers who have moved beyond the pretty picture and for whom photography is more than entertainment - photography that aims at being true, not at being beautiful because what is true is most often beautiful..

>>>> Comments, commentary and lively discussions, re: my writings or any topic germane to the medium and its apparatus, are vigorously encouraged.

Search this site
Recent Topics
Journal Categories
Archives by Month

Photography Directory by PhotoLinks

Powered by Squarespace
« man & nature # 266 ~ chilly nights and warm(ish) days | Main | man +/- nature # 3 ~ the rocks in Jay »

man +/- nature # 4 ~ the Jay Range

man +/- nature # 4click to embiggen
The beat goes on re: man +- nature and I must admit that leaving the house with a specific picturing intent feels a bit strange. Nevertheless, I'm starting to get with the picturing program.

That said, I am still wrestling with the presentation, re: the graphic elements. I have eliminated the "?" and I have reduced the size of the "+/-" but I still not certain that the graphics are "right".

As always, opinions and comments are appreciated.

Reader Comments (6)

I think this story might sum up my thoughts on these pictures:

Along one of my favorite hiking trails there is a rock formation called "Indian Head." Anyone with half a brain can look at the rock and see the head dress, the stereotypical pointed chin, the nose, the eyes, the face. But some jackass had to go and spray paint blue and yellow war paint on the face and the head dress red.

I'm not, in anyway, calling you a jackass. I just do not see why you need to have the +/-. Why not just shoot a panorama with one corner of it having some unexpected bit of man in it? Isn't that enough to make the point?

November 13, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterMatt

I agree. You can do without the -/+. That apart I think the concept is good and strikes a chord.

November 13, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterFrank

"Why not just shoot a panorama with one corner of it having some unexpected bit of man in it? Isn't that enough to make the point?"
Well I think there are two points or considerations. Each image must stand on it's own and put together be larger than each is individually.

November 13, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterInfamous J

i would use the < or > symbols. or emoticons… maybe ? :(

November 13, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJimmi Nuffin

Mark - like the images, aspect ratio, etc. - see my thoughts on this on The Panocturnists Blog -

November 13, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterTim Baskerville

I'll add my voice to those who say "great, but lose the +/-". The idea behind the pictures would come across very clearly without it, I think.

November 17, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterPaul Morris

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>