On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 08:46:26AM +0200, AlunFoto scripsit: > 2009/6/8 Graydon <[email protected]>: > > The second produces a much less diffuse image; the visual centre if the > > flower without meaningful distraction. > > > > I am not sure this is *better*; the isolation of the blossom reduces the > > element of reality in the image, the sense that this is a thing seen, > > rather than a thing imagined. > > Thanks for commenting, Graydon. > > Reality is always full of nuisances, isn't it. :-)
That's actually a major issue for the folks doing computer generated images that are supposed to look realistic -- ok, you've rendered that bookshelf, now put some dust on it. But not *even* dust, it has to go where the dust would actually be... > Purely hypotethical questions, of course, but what if I'd presented > version 2 first? Would it alter the perception of realism? I think so. 1 really does have much more visible detail in the flower itself. It looks more like this infinitely intricate biological thing than the flower image in 2 does. > I could also have removed the oof flowers physically from the scene > before shooting. If working with a tripod, the thought would probably > have crossed my mind. Would that alter the realism? I dunno... :-) That depends on how familiar the viewer is with the specific type of flower, I think. If I see a single peony flower from a medium (couple meters) distance, something in my brain is going to have doubts. Lingon berry, well, I've never seen it in flower, so I won't have that niggle, but other people will. -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
