Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Cem,
As you and Bart both point out, There are a number of kinds of issues here that we canaddress:
Fashion: As Bart ponts out, but we are gong to try to avoid that. I'm not prepared to push any changes for the sake of "fashion" as we have a beautiful interface.
Persons with disabilities/claimed difficulties:We would be up to date to pay attention and so far we haven't found a way to address this.
Better Presentation of Images: Only recently with the appearance of dark images with key points that are light, (Wayne Oakes work) Bright images ,(Cem's snow scenes), pale images, (Wendy Thurman's soft Kabul image), The almost light grey Railways scene from india and so many others, I realized that the bright background might be interfering with the experience of the photograph.
One easy solution for posting photographs I've discovered is the use of a dark enough grey matte to tone down one's attention the the white page. That, right now, we all can do. This the photographer can do for him/herself. If people complain the picture is too light, chances are you need a matte to tone down the jump in luminance between the b.g. and the photograph. For this, the photographer is absolutely in charge. But PLEASE, no thick wooden/metal frames that become stronger elements than the actual photograph. We're not a frame shop!
Text Remains a Puzzle: I have no idea what the physiologists have actually proven, one way or another about white text on black/ charcoal.
So what are we left with: When you post you mage, if it's pale o dark with other areas of subtle light, consider a 1.-4 cm charcoal matte only sufficiently dark to cut down the contrast and allow the details of your picture to be enjoyed.
As for the pages themselves? We're going to leave them as they are until we have something that gives us the best of both worlds: the OPF design and the flexibility some folk might want on how to view OPF.
I'm going to look at dGrin and see how good or bad their interface is.
Asher
As you and Bart both point out, There are a number of kinds of issues here that we canaddress:
Fashion: As Bart ponts out, but we are gong to try to avoid that. I'm not prepared to push any changes for the sake of "fashion" as we have a beautiful interface.
Persons with disabilities/claimed difficulties:We would be up to date to pay attention and so far we haven't found a way to address this.
Better Presentation of Images: Only recently with the appearance of dark images with key points that are light, (Wayne Oakes work) Bright images ,(Cem's snow scenes), pale images, (Wendy Thurman's soft Kabul image), The almost light grey Railways scene from india and so many others, I realized that the bright background might be interfering with the experience of the photograph.
One easy solution for posting photographs I've discovered is the use of a dark enough grey matte to tone down one's attention the the white page. That, right now, we all can do. This the photographer can do for him/herself. If people complain the picture is too light, chances are you need a matte to tone down the jump in luminance between the b.g. and the photograph. For this, the photographer is absolutely in charge. But PLEASE, no thick wooden/metal frames that become stronger elements than the actual photograph. We're not a frame shop!
Text Remains a Puzzle: I have no idea what the physiologists have actually proven, one way or another about white text on black/ charcoal.
So what are we left with: When you post you mage, if it's pale o dark with other areas of subtle light, consider a 1.-4 cm charcoal matte only sufficiently dark to cut down the contrast and allow the details of your picture to be enjoyed.
As for the pages themselves? We're going to leave them as they are until we have something that gives us the best of both worlds: the OPF design and the flexibility some folk might want on how to view OPF.
I'm going to look at dGrin and see how good or bad their interface is.
Asher