|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Question for all the Photography fans |
| 51-55 of 55 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | Page 2 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 01-06-13 04:44pm - 4368 days | #51 | |
|
Claypaws (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 144 Registered: May 16, '12 Location: UK |
A few comments here. I have honestly tried to force more shots into a landscape orientation but it does not really work. Consider a model who is standing. You put her head at the top and her feet at the bottom. Her body occupies the screen height regardless of the orientation. Her body then necessarily occupies the same screen width regardless of the orientation. The only thing that differs between the portrait and landscape versions of this standing shot is what occupies the space on either side of the model. In the portrait format, it is blank screen; in landscape format, it is the furniture or background or scenery next to the model. So to insist on landscape in this instance is to insist on more of the image being devoted to something other than the model. This is even more strange when you consider the pixel area devoted to the model in each case, assuming a 3000x2000 pixel image. In the portrait format, if the body's width is half its height, the model's body occupies an area which is, say, 3000 pixels high and perhaps 1500 pixels wide. In the landscape format, her body is 2000 pixels high and 1000 pixels wide. In fact, the portrait format provides more resolution for zooming in with a standing model than does the landscape format, for any given value of the image dimensions. We could argue that the better fit of landscape format to the monitor aspect ratio should constrain the shots towards a greater dominance of lying down full length images and also mid range crops which show the model from waist up or other poses which fill the landscape orientation. And we would reduce the number of standing shots. However, standing shots are very popular with members and these offer the maximum available resolution when shot in portrait orientation. I have found that trying to reduce the proportion of portrait oriented shots is not consistent with also maintaining in each set a variety of poses to cater for all tastes. Try viewing portrait format images in a viewer such as ACDSee, set to "fit image width". It provides a good increase in resolution when compared to the landscape version of the same standing pose. The only compromise I can come up with is to mix landscape and portrait orientation within each set but where the format is driven by the pose, rather than driving the pose by the format. Edited on Jan 06, 2013, 04:47pm | |
|
||
| 01-06-13 10:54pm - 4367 days | #52 | |
|
hodayathink (0)
Active User Posts: 312 Registered: Mar 27, '09 Location: Illinois |
You said what I've been trying to say better than I ever could. Thank you. | |
|
||
| 01-06-13 11:33pm - 4367 days | #53 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Well, there are are lot of photographers out there that need to sharpen up their act then. Yes, horizontal format does require a little more thought & care as to what you are including in shot. That can actually add, rather than detract from the photo. I can't count the number of shots I have seen, from respected photographers, whose vertical format work time after time ends in the clipping of body parts. Cap'n.  Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! Edited on Jan 06, 2013, 11:38pm | |
|
||
| 01-07-13 04:36am - 4367 days | #54 | |
|
KET924aab (0)
Active User Posts: 60 Registered: Dec 18, '12 Location: California, USA |
What we really need are monitors that we can easily rotate from landscape to potrait orientation. That would solve the problem. I thought Apple made one some years ago. | |
|
||
| 01-07-13 09:52am - 4367 days | #55 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Now there's a good idea. I would stop all my objections to portrait format if I could swivel my monitor. One of my beefs is that "portrait" is simply too small on the ordinary monitor ... for me. That's one of the reasons I never use my tablet either to view porn. If I could swivel my wide screen monitor the picture would be considerably larger. Yes, I'd go for that! I don't care for technical details or how many pixels are contained in a High Resolution picture. All I know is that I like to see the models big without having to zoom and study each body part separately. | |
|
||
| 51-55 of 55 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | Page 2 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
