Doug Franklin wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:56:55 +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote:
I think I've never posted this one here:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc11e.htm
I like it, Dario. Have you tried a crop that includes just the shadow
of the rose, and not the rose itself?
Hi Doug,
Done.
Bonazza pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: PESO: Ghost of arose
Hello Dario,
You have explained yourself well in this post. Based on what you
said, the title is misleading to me as I understood it to mean that
the shadow was the subject. What I
On 9/9/05, Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Bruce,
Two pictures are now available in that page, including a crop that better
matches the title.
How do you like it? Any different suggestions? If so, feel free to crop my
picture at your leisure.
I really like the crop!!
You're
I agree with Frank. This is a much better image to me. Not only does
it match the title, but it really focuses me in on a subject - the
other shot looked like a quick snap until I looked close at it.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Friday, September 9, 2005, 5:46:55 AM, you wrote:
ft On 9/9/05,
In a message dated 9/9/2005 12:09:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doug Franklin wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:56:55 +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote:
I think I've never posted this one here:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc11e.htm
I like it, Dario. Have you tried a
I think I've never posted this one here:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc11e.htm
Comments welcome,
Dario
On 9/8/05, Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I've never posted this one here:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc11e.htm
Comments welcome,
Dario
I like it.
It took me a minute or two to notice the shadow (without which it's an
okay, but not outstanding photo). Once I
I had the same problem as Frank. Without the title I might not have
noticed the shadow. I think the subject is too obscured. I think a
different angle where only a bit of the actual rose was visible -
almost straight on, where we could see the rose casting the shadow,
but the shadow being the
]
To: frank theriault pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: PESO: Ghost of arose
I had the same problem as Frank. Without the title I might not have
noticed the shadow. I think the subject is too obscured. I think a
different angle where only a bit
frank theriault wrote:
I like it.
It took me a minute or two to notice the shadow (without which it's an
okay, but not outstanding photo). Once I saw it, however, everything
else snapped into place.
Ghosts are elusive, aren't they? For that reason you cannot see it
immediately :-)
Cool!
Bruce Dayton wrote:
I had the same problem as Frank. Without the title I might not have
noticed the shadow.
Ghosts are elusive, for you too :-)
I think the subject is too obscured. I think a
different angle where only a bit of the actual rose was visible -
almost straight on, where we
Hello Dario,
You have explained yourself well in this post. Based on what you
said, the title is misleading to me as I understood it to mean that
the shadow was the subject. What I was suggesting would be to exactly
make the shadow be the subject and would change the intent of the
photo. So
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:56:55 +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote:
I think I've never posted this one here:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/misc/misc11e.htm
I like it, Dario. Have you tried a crop that includes just the shadow
of the rose, and not the rose itself?
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
13 matches
Mail list logo
