P.J. Alling wrote:
On 9/22/2016 6:44 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Nope, it's a coast garter.
Better hope it's a coast garter, otherwise you'll never be allowed to
mow you lawn again.
No biggie. It's pretty tough to mow redwoods anyways.
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on
On 9/22/2016 6:44 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:27:20AM -0700, Larry Colen wrote:
My version is indeed punched up a bit past nominal, but not so much
that, to
me, it looks screamingly unreal. I wonder if I lost any vibrancy due
to the
lights I used.
Larry Colen wrote:
Alan C wrote:
Take a look at this:
http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/pages/t.s.tetrataenia.html
Great link. The friend who liked the photo said it looked like a coast
garter snake:
http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/pages/t.e.terrestris.html
If you go down the
John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:27:20AM -0700, Larry Colen wrote:
My version is indeed punched up a bit past nominal, but not so much that, to
me, it looks screamingly unreal. I wonder if I lost any vibrancy due to the
lights I used. Yesterday noon, it was still under the
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:27:20AM -0700, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> My version is indeed punched up a bit past nominal, but not so much that, to
> me, it looks screamingly unreal. I wonder if I lost any vibrancy due to the
> lights I used. Yesterday noon, it was still under the plants where I let
al Message- From: P.J. Alling
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 6:22 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Which version works best?
I don't think I've ever seen a garter snake as vibrant as the second
image. I don't know exactly what the subspecies in California looks
like, but probably
Take a look at this:
http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/pages/t.s.tetrataenia.html
Larry's "vibrant" version is very close.
Alan C
-Original Message-
From: P.J. Alling
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 6:22 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Which version
I don't think I've ever seen a garter snake as vibrant as the second
image. I don't know exactly what the subspecies in California looks
like, but probably something between the two based on those snakes in
New England. I like the snake, in the first, but it could use a tiny
boost, while the
I much prefer the more vibrant image. Your original version is kinda blah - a
technical term meaning ho hum.
-Original Message-
>From: Paul Stenquist <pnstenqu...@mac.com>
>Subject: Re: Which version works best?
>
>They're both nice shots, but I prefer the more vibr
Yet another vote for the vibrant version. It's just about the right
amount too, neatly avoiding the "dial it to 11" inclination.
And it's a fine, dramatic image too.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:44 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
> A friend sent me a note that she really wanted a print
Another vote for the vibrant version.
- Marco
> On Sep 22, 2016, at 4:51 AM, Brian Walters wrote:
>
> I agree with Paul. The more vibrant version is more interesting. The
> colour in the first version is a bit too subtle to my eye.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Brian
>
>> On
I like that too but still prefer the more vibrant version by a whisker.
Cheers
Brian
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 07:33 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
>
> Larry Colen wrote:
> > A friend sent me a note that she really wanted a print of one of my
> > snake and skull photos for her daughter, so I
I agree with Paul. The more vibrant version is more interesting. The
colour in the first version is a bit too subtle to my eye.
Cheers
Brian
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 06:44 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
> A friend sent me a note that she really wanted a print of one of my
> snake and skull photos
They're both nice shots, but I prefer the more vibrant one. It's more
interesting and the pronounced yellow is more pleasing to my eye.
Paul via phone
> On Sep 22, 2016, at 4:44 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> A friend sent me a note that she really wanted a print of one of my
Larry Colen wrote:
A friend sent me a note that she really wanted a print of one of my
snake and skull photos for her daughter, so I worked it up and sent her
a copy of the file to print:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/29744792311/in/album-72157674075743956/
She thanked me, and
A friend sent me a note that she really wanted a print of one of my
snake and skull photos for her daughter, so I worked it up and sent her
a copy of the file to print:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/29744792311/in/album-72157674075743956/
She thanked me, and without my asking for it,
Larry,
I would consider two version of 73 (with the color adjusted):
1. the square crop as you have in 73-4, and
2. the cut that is just a bit wider than 73-2. I am not sure
if it would be just to the left, through the middle or just on the right
edge of the 3rd whole in the wheel (so that it
Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Larry,
I also prefer 73 for the same reason.
As somebody mentioned, - I'd reduce the read on it to may the skin
tone like that in 78.
Ideally, I'd also have just a bit more on the RHS, similar to what you
have in 78.
Think if you can make a composite of the two images,
I just found a second version of one of my favorite shots. I'm too
close to it to see them objectively, which one works best, ?
78?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/15320942460/
73?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/15320941110/
Any other suggestions for either one are welcome.
73 looks like the proper composition.
However the context and the feel of the scene seem to require an
unorthodox approach.
That is why I may suggest the 78 as a punchier alternative.
Bulent
-
http://patoloji.gen.tr
73 by the slimmest of margins - but either one would work.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com
Subject: Which version works best?
I just found a second version of one of my favorite shots. I'm too
I suggest reducing the red slightly.
Jack
- Original Message -
From: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com
To: PDML pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 12:46:42 PM
Subject: Which version works best?
I just found a second version of one of my favorite shots. I'm too
close
I solidly prefer 73 and I might agree with Jack about a slight reduction in
red. Cheers, Christine
On Oct 11, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
I just found a second version of one of my favorite shots. I'm too close to
it to see them objectively, which one works best,
Quoting Larry Colen l...@red4est.com:
I just found a second version of one of my favorite shots. I'm too
close to it to see them objectively, which one works best, ?
78?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/15320942460/
73?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/15320941110/
Any other
I like 73. The whole toe, less prominent wheel and off center
composition make it work for me.
On 10/11/2014 3:46 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
I just found a second version of one of my favorite shots. I'm too
close to it to see them objectively, which one works best, ?
78?
Another vote for 73. Gotta see the whole shoe...
-p
On 10/11/2014 4:04 PM, Mark C wrote:
I like 73. The whole toe, less prominent wheel and off center
composition make it work for me.
On 10/11/2014 3:46 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
I just found a second version of one of my favorite shots. I'm
Larry,
I also prefer 73 for the same reason.
As somebody mentioned, - I'd reduce the read on it to may the skin
tone like that in 78.
Ideally, I'd also have just a bit more on the RHS, similar to what you
have in 78.
Think if you can make a composite of the two images, adding a bit more
of the
27 matches
Mail list logo