|
Image Title: Embarcadero Two
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Random Pictures By:
Joel
Aron
|
|
There are 9 Comments in 1 Pages
1
|
|
Hugo de Wolf
{K:184981} 3/20/2006
|
Hi Joel, Impressive series, not so much because of the (photographic) beauty of each of the images, but because of how well they go together. Very consistent stuff... They must look great framed together, although I think I would change the sequence a bit (two, three, four, one, or three, four, two one)
They all share a same mood, quite gloomy and grey, yet they're all challenging in layout. Interesting to see how the planes left and right seem to shift in the shady part of the building, too... I guess that's the reference with Escher you refer to.
Nice work!
Cheers,
Hugo
|
|
|
|
|
Joel Aron
{K:14920} 3/20/2006
|
Thank you for the great comments and suggestions Hugo!
That has been the tough part.. in what order do I hang these!? I even thought of stright up a wall, rather than side by side... or do I put them 2 x 2!? I like your idea of two, three, four, one. I'll try that out tonight after I do a rough print of them. You did just give me an idea! I'll post 4 versions of these images grouped together in 4 different layouts. What do you think? Too much 'b/w bulding overkill' ?
And yes, that is the Escher illusion. It's pretty trippy, and everywhere with building close to each other, but for some reason, these buildings make it very dramatic.
cheers,
-Joel
|
|
|
|
|
Hugo de Wolf
{K:184981} 3/20/2006
|
Hi Joel,
You can always use the Michael Kanemoto style; it'll save you at least two of your daily uploads....:) To briefly address the other optios you mention:
2 x 2: Could work, if you'd put numbers one and two diagonally. Not easy to put together, though, as the image aspects differ slightly.
Top down? (Vertical arrangement) You'd need a very high ceiling for that...:)
Putting up the four images joined together in a panoramic image could work, yet you'll also have the different aspects to consider. I think a frame (if any) should be kept to an absolute minimum. Another option would be to let the edges of the photos touch eachother, equalling the height of the images. In that case, I would go for one, three, four two... (letting the portrait formatted photos flank the landscape formatted ones)
Bottom line: to make it work, and prevent the b/w building overkill, I think the K.I.S.S. principle is the way forward.
Cheers,
Hugo
|
|
|
|
|
Joel Aron
{K:14920} 3/20/2006
|
So true Hugo.
Thanks again for your insight, and suggestions with how to present these. Leaning away from the 2x2 method..it may force the images into a group, and not let them stand alone. Agree w/ the frame as well. Last night, my wife and I looked at them for a while w/ and w/o mattes around them, and agreed, w/o mattes (was leaning on a 1.5" white border). Once again.. another puzzle!
If I have time tonight, I'll post some concepts.
Thanks again for your help!
cheers,
-Joel
|
|
|
|
|
Hugo de Wolf
{K:184981} 3/20/2006
|
Any time, I'll be around...:) It'll be cool to actually see the differences, too.
Cheers,
Hugo
|
|
|
|
|
Joćo Tavares
{K:39126} 3/20/2006
|
Fantįstic B&W of arquithecture dear Joel well done my friend!!!
cheers
joćo
|
|
|
|
|
Joel Aron
{K:14920} 3/20/2006
|
Joćo,
thanks you again very much my friend!
cheers,
-Joel
|
|
|
|
|
- -
{K:1222} 3/20/2006
|
great bw joel
me too I thought about Escher's work
really well done
love it
babi
|
|
|
|
|
Joel Aron
{K:14920} 3/21/2006
|
babi,
thank you very much! So glad that you love it!
cheers,
-Joel
|
|
|
|
