ch30: tryptych formatting

DoctorIt · January 10, 2005

Not only is this subject hard enough, but I'm sitting here wondering how formatting will play into this challenge. For example, the first submission from Micheal, has 3 photos oriented as a landscape, and placed next to each other. This makes for a loooong image, which even on smuggy-Medium makes the individual images practically thumbnails.

Obvious answer is, use a bigger format, as not to lose details. But how bout those of us who don't have 30" screens (like andy

)? I'm guessing we'll get detail of each individual tryptych component, but lose on the combined effect in having to scroll.

So I'm just curious as to some advice/thoughts on this.

Bryan · January 10, 2005

Maybe post with all 3 images fitting on the screen and include a link to larger formatting so we can see detail?

That or this is a tryptych challenge:
1) get a good subject
2) get 3 good shots
3) fit them on the darn screen :-)

This is going to be a tough assignment, I do believe :-)

Andy · January 10, 2005

easy -

embed a -L size from smugmug, which'll be 800px max size and you can provide a link to a larger version (say a -O for original) size...

cheers

ginger_55 · January 10, 2005

andy wrote:

easy -

embed a -L size from smugmug, which'll be 800px max size and you can provide a link to a larger version (say a -O for original) size...

cheers

I couldn't upload the original size to smugmug, it was too big. I have to change it to something to get it down here, then I can do as you suggest.

What size do you suggest I use to get it down to smugmug.

ginger

fish · January 10, 2005

I'm out on this one. Just doesn't interest me.

madonna%20and%20child%20triptych.jpg

landrum · January 11, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

Not only is this subject hard enough, but I'm sitting here wondering how formatting will play into this challenge. For example, the first submission from Micheal, has 3 photos oriented as a landscape, and placed next to each other. This makes for a loooong image, which even on smuggy-Medium makes the individual images practically thumbnails.

Obvious answer is, use a bigger format, as not to lose details. But how bout those of us who don't have 30" screens (like andy )? I'm guessing we'll get detail of each individual tryptych component, but lose on the combined effect in having to scroll.

So I'm just curious as to some advice/thoughts on this.

It doesn't have to be horizontal in layout...even if the photos themselves are.

Michael Allen · January 11, 2005

I didn't have too much trouble once I got the 1st done, I didn't use full size photos. I resized to 500pixels and made my background 1650 wide to start and then worked with my background and photos both at 50% size. Don't know if it was the best way but it was pretty easy.

ginger_55 · January 11, 2005

I can't get the third photo into the background, don't think it is the size. I just don't do layers well enough.

ginger

Any help on this would be appreciated. I am not going to be here for awhile. But when I come back........

lynnma · January 11, 2005

ginger_55 wrote:

I can't get the third photo into the background, don't think it is the size. I just don't do layers well enough.

ginger

Any help on this would be appreciated. I am not going to be here for awhile. But when I come back........

Ginger pm me with what you are doing and we'll work on it..

I just quick threw this together to see what happens.. ignore content, quality etc I was just interested to see size...

I dunno if this works or not.. I just started with a background.. opened each new shot and dragged it onto the back ground then used "edit" "transform" "scale" same to each one then I cropped it to straighten the edges and put the whole thing on a new background a drop shadowed it.. it's rough but I think it would work? why not..

muddyknees · January 11, 2005

Gosh I wish I was back in in New England about now! Beautiful scenes!

When you say you "dragged each shot onto the background" did that create a new layer for each shot?

Gary

lynnma wrote:

Ginger pm me with what you are doing and we'll work on it..

I just quick threw this together to see what happens.. ignore content, quality etc I was just interested to see size...

I dunno if this works or not.. I just started with a background.. opened each new shot and dragged it onto the back ground then used "edit" "transform" "scale" same to each one then I cropped it to straighten the edges and put the whole thing on a new background a drop shadowed it.. it's rough but I think it would work? why not..

DoctorIt · January 11, 2005

andy wrote:

easy -

embed a -L size from smugmug, which'll be 800px max size and you can provide a link to a larger version (say a -O for original) size...

cheers

right, I know, but I this was more of a philosophical question, not a technical one. If I look at an original version, I feel like I'll miss the effect of the tryptych, get it?

Again, I'll reiterate, I'm having no technical problems, if that was the challenge, I'd win half of 'em

(why I'm an engineer, not a photographer), this was a creative dilemma I was having.

I think the good answer, which I was hoping someone would support (thanks landrum), is that vertical tryptychs might be the answer. Just something to think about I guess.

lynnma · January 11, 2005

muddyknees wrote:

Gosh I wish I was back in in New England about now! Beautiful scenes!

When you say you "dragged each shot onto the background" did that create a new layer for each shot?

Gary

yes.. I started with just the back ground layer which was blank.. the I opened the first shot that I wanted to use and minimized that so I could drag that onto the blank background.. that automatically created another layer.. did the same with each photograph and then flattened the whole thing at the end. I'm sure there must be other ways.. just the way I do it..let me know if this is unclear..:D

I can then create a new background if I want and drag this flattened lot onto it, drop shadow and recrop..
This may be a convoluted way but it's the way I do it.. I'd be interested to see what others do...:D

DJ-S1 · January 11, 2005

fish wrote:

I'm out on this one. Just doesn't interest me.

OK, so leave it to Fish to come up with a great example. This is what has been bugging me about the current entries floating around, and it's also why I haven't got an entry yet.

To my way of thinking, which may certainly be incorrect, a tryptich (sp?) isn't just 3 photos of the same subject (3 shots of one chicken), or 3 photos of similar subjects (3 photos of 3 different chickens). I think of it as a central image with 2 supporting or enhancing images around it. Like, say, eggs in a nest on the left, baby chicks on the right, and a nice chicken dinner fresh and steaming from the oven in the center.

I never was good at analogies...

Anyway, what do you guys think of that? The concept, not the analogy.

landrum · January 12, 2005

DJ-S1 wrote:

OK, so leave it to Fish to come up with a great example. This is what has been bugging me about the current entries floating around, and it's also why I haven't got an entry yet.

To my way of thinking, which may certainly be incorrect, a tryptich (sp?) isn't just 3 photos of the same subject (3 shots of one chicken), or 3 photos of similar subjects (3 photos of 3 different chickens). I think of it as a central image with 2 supporting or enhancing images around it. Like, say, eggs in a nest on the left, baby chicks on the right, and a nice chicken dinner fresh and steaming from the oven in the center. I never was good at analogies...

Anyway, what do you guys think of that? The concept, not the analogy.

The actual definition of Triptych (by Webster) is "a set of three panels with pictures, etc. often hinged: used as an alter piece." There are no rules about what the pictures should be or their relationship. I like your concept of "natural progression" ...and the analogy! (made me laugh and a little bit hungry!

)

Thank you for helping me think outside the box!

wxwax · January 12, 2005

DJ-S1 wrote:

To my way of thinking, which may certainly be incorrect, a tryptich (sp?) isn't just 3 photos of the same subject (3 shots of one chicken), or 3 photos of similar subjects (3 photos of 3 different chickens). I think of it as a central image with 2 supporting or enhancing images around it. Like, say, eggs in a nest on the left, baby chicks on the right, and a nice chicken dinner fresh and steaming from the oven in the center. I never was good at analogies...

Anyway, what do you guys think of that? The concept, not the analogy.

Well, I agree with you. But, and this is a big but, the beauty of the Challenge is that someone could come up with another format that works really well. We've already seen baby nap shots that seem to work as a sequence.

But I suspect my first attempt will be along the lines that you describe.

DJ-S1 · January 12, 2005

Oh thanks for reminding me, I think the baby nap is fantastic!

And I'm certainly not dismissing the other entries that are out there, I just had a certain thought in my head and I wanted to see if anyone else thought the same way. When I saw Fish's icon it reminded me to mention it.

wxwax · January 12, 2005

DJ-S1 wrote:

Oh thanks for reminding me, I think the baby nap is fantastic!

And I'm certainly not dismissing the other entries that are out there, I just had a certain thought in my head and I wanted to see if anyone else thought the same way. When I saw Fish's icon it reminded me to mention it.

Fish's triptych is what I tend to envision, and I find modern triptychs to be inscrutable.

ch30: tryptych formatting

Comments