The Parthenon

[FrankMi]

When is it appropriate to include an inset image?

For example, with all the reconstruction work going on for the Parthenon, it was almost impossible to get a vantage point that didn't have scaffolding and cranes in the image. In addition, I wanted to give a sense of what the original would have looked like when it was in its prime.



The Parthenon in Nashville, Tennessee, USA (see insert) is a full scale replica of the original Greek Parthenon. Insert image photographer: Ryan Kaldari.

A bit of background...

The Parthenon is a temple on the Athenian Acropolis, Greece, dedicated to the maiden goddess Athena, whom the people of Athens considered their patron deity. Its construction began in 447 BC when the Athenian Empire was at the height of its power. It was completed in 438 BC, although decoration of the building continued until 432 BC. It is the most important surviving building of Classical Greece, generally considered the culmination of the development of the Doric order. Its decorative sculptures are considered some of the high points of Greek art. The Parthenon is regarded as an enduring symbol of Ancient Greece, Athenian democracy, western civilization and one of the world's greatest cultural monuments. The Greek Ministry of Culture is currently carrying out a program of selective restoration and reconstruction to ensure the stability of the partially ruined structure.

[Wavelength]

Very impressive ; i like the image-in-image style which helps an immediate comparison
Regards

[Clive Kirby]

Frank
Good photograph of the Pathenon. I think you've done well to get around the reconstruction work. It's not immediately noticable except for the bag in the foreground. Why an insert, I would expect to see them in a text book. Why not a diptych? - perhaps presented as a mirror image to compare the two?
regards
Clive

[Donald]

Why an insert, ... Why not a diptych?

That was my thought. The insert detracts from what is a very good image of the real thing. A bit like an over-zealous watermark/signature that some folks like to slap on the pictures.

[FrankMi]

Frank
Good photograph of the Pathenon. I think you've done well to get around the reconstruction work. It's not immediately noticable except for the bag in the foreground. Why an insert, I would expect to see them in a text book. Why not a diptych? - perhaps presented as a mirror image to compare the two?
regards
Clive

I hadn't thought about that! Excellent idea. Now to figure out the arrangement given that these two images have different perspectives. Thank you Clive!

[FrankMi]

That was my thought. The insert detracts from what is a very good image of the real thing. A bit like an over-zealous watermark/signature that some folks like to slap on the pictures.

Ouch! LOL! I love coming to CIC as I can always count on practical advise. Thanks Donald!

[FrankMi]

While I am working on seeing if I can make a diptych for this image, I came across a short video of the replica of the Parthenon in Nashville, TN that I thought others might like.

It gives us an idea of what the Parthenon might have looked like when it was new and includes an original sized statue of the Greek Goddess, Athena Parthenos (literally, "Athena the Virgin"). The statue is a massive chryselephantine (gold and ivory) sculpture made by Phidias and was housed in the Parthenon in Athens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ag8ULtLmIM

[FrankMi]

OK, I gave diptych a try but I'm not sure it worked so well.

First, I tried to locate an image that was close to the same perspective that I had to use on the Acropolis owing to the topography that was there an the fact that I couldn't use the front of the structure because it looked like this:



It really makes me really wonder how the Greeks were able to built that thing on the top of the Acropolis to begin with!

Then I tried to see if I could get the two images to align, hoping that we could use the LyteBox to switch seamlessly between the images and see the difference that way - not a hope, at least not with my current level of skill!

I finally had to use an image that shows the front of the Knoxville copy to compare to the back of the original but I think that the front and back are so similar that it might not spoil the effect.

Finally I just got them as close to the same size as I could, knowing that even in failure you can at least learn what doesn't work.

Although I am disappointed with the results, it does provide a better way to compare the current Parthenon with what was likely the look of the original without using the dreaded over-zealous watermark/signature look of an insert!



Unfortunately I was not able to determine the author of the Knoxville image I nicked from the web so I hope they can forgive me for not providing the credits.