>Let's dump on Mark for his first Pano. >(Grumpy Critic Voice): "Hell, not only are there >TWO rivers but they aren't mentioned in Hemingway. >Amateur shrimp." -lol -Lon
Mark Cassino wrote: > Hi Marnie - > > At 02:54 PM 9/17/2003 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> My eye didn't know where to go. The wide angle semi-distortion seemed >> to give >> the Pano two centers of interest, if you know what I mean -- a center of >> interest both left and right. Or maybe it's because you shot two river >> heads. I'm >> not totally sure. But my eyeball kept bouncing back and forth, right >> and left. > > > Thanks for your comment - I intended the brightly lit area about 1/3rd > of the way in from the left to be the center of interest. Not a very > tight COI, but, hopefully enough to anchor the image. I really don't > want a strongly convergent composition in landscapes. > > In my mind the major distraction in the image is the apparent 'seam' > that runs down the middle of the shot - though it is nowhere near any > actual seam created by the pano process. I struggled with the idea of > fudging and taking it out in photoshop, but ultimately came down on the > side of leaving it in since it was actually there... > >> It leaves me wondering if this is a problem with pano's in general? >> Finding a >> main center of interest? Some place to direct the eye first? Maybe >> they are >> just too wide a scene for most people's eyes to take in all at once. > > > Last night I was discussing panos with a painter who commented that she > had always wanted to do them on a curved canvas. Seems like and > interesting idea - - mounting the image on a 180 degree arch would > re-work they way it is perceived entirely! > > But a more fundamental question - why have a center of interest at all? > A lot of Elliot Porter's images, for example, have virtually no center > of interest, but are highly effective compositions. When you get into > landscapes, do you really want to pull the eye towards one center, or > should it not just be allowed to roam? > > Granted - I did intend to have a COI in my pano shot, but with a lot of > landscapes - like http://www.markcassino.com/feature.htm and > http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/landscapes/0308land17.htm I try > _not_ to have a COI because that would be antithetical to the intent of > the image. I don't know if it works or not - but I think the concept > could work if properly executed. > > thanks again for you comments! > > - MCC > > ----- > Mark Cassino > Kalamazoo, MI Awww, come on, my question was serious. And I got a serious reply from Mark. It was an interesting idea, no COI. And a curved pano. BTW, Mark, in the two shots you listed my eye resolves on the center tree as the COI, although much less so in the second one. Having thought about this more, I think the eye (or brain to be more accurate) probably seeks a COI, even if there is an intentional one or not. Just the way we are scripted. Because we learn to read left to right (or otherwise in another culture). So our eye tends to scan rectangular graphic images the same as a page of text. Though the eye tends to go to the center of the image first I think, unless the COI (maybe a person) is deliberately placed off center and then it goes there. This, of course, borders on the whole rule of thirds debate. Let's not go there. The photography teacher in my last class was big on COIs and where to place them and what they could be (people, spot of contrasting color, etc). While, as a former drawer/painter, I had a slightly different perspective -- like liking lines that run out of the frame, then bring one back in. Dynamic tension. I feel it's okay for the eye to go out of the frame as long as it is also brought back in. Because nothing in the frame to engage the eye in some way, no hook, and the eye will scan right over a picture and find it boring. Anyway, I am still thinking about the COI thing and still find it interesting food for thought. Marnie aka Doe
