mne ten zaber prijde dost nevyraznej, neuchopitelnej. k tomu se svym zpusobem "hodi" i ta sedivost, ktera jak na dvou notebookach, tak v praci na velkym lcd (mva) vypada jako odbarveny digi. takze u mne proste spatny :(.

to je druha vec...

umim si predstavit, ze by to slo nazvetsovat tak, aby to vic pusobilo... aby ten clovek vic vystoupil... kdyz uz to ma plochy svetlo. ale tak jako tak bych z ty fotky stejne nebyl odvarenej.

tohle neberu

a abych se vyjadril k fotce, tak myslim ze je to vcelku fajn... co se tyka svetlosti/tmavosti, tak bych na printu vic prisvitil rohy - udelal vinetaci, dole je to takovy neuzavreny ;). a bilej ramecek mi nevadi, jak je asi patrny z mejch lamanou anglictinou psanejch vyblitku.

I meant that sometimes the borders are something like identifier of particular author - like those on photographs of famous Czech photographer Bohdan Holomicek (and fstop photographer Martin Slavik), who's using old Meopta enlarger with manually modified mask of 35mm negative carrier. And maybe one of the reasons to let them on papers/scans (although we could remove them by paper holder or in postprocess) is their meaning that the photograph is enlargement of full frame, not cut-out.

I only want to say that sometimes borders are "signature" of the author - I don't know whether Milan Ulrich is enlarging all of his photographs on papers with large white borders, but he could - and I always try to focus more on content, than on borders (except the borders with stupid photoshop-made signatures, bevels or fake film borders on digital photographs).

dr: poor man bohdan holomicek, who used (and still use) "enlarger borders" for all of his photographs... http://www.digitalrailroad.net/FOTOPLUSPICTURES/Production/PhotoGroupView.aspx?pbid=4&msa=1&pgid=5676171

ne

nefunguje

na iPhone to vypada uzasne

tohle nechapu

zajimavy zaber, ale technicky me to nebere