Good point about the sign angle in regard to camera position. I hadn't thought of that. Of course you've spent much time thinking about all of this, and I'm just thoughtlessly winging it <g>. Seriously, I may be wrong about the crop as well. A tighter crop does sacrifice a bit of the environment, but it provides a more focused look at the principals. I may well like the loose crop better on a large print. In any case, I probably would have cropped it as seen here, at least for the web image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2793731
Paul
On Oct 17, 2004, at 8:40 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hi Paul ....
A tighter crop? Well, I'll fiddle with it some more, just to see if I've
missed something, although after two days this seemed about perfect to my
eye. Why don't you show me what you mean.
I took numerous shots from other angles, so drawing too much attention
wouldn't have been the problem ... the folks knew I was there ... shot an
entire roll of film of them and a couple of other people. Unfortunately,
only a few came out because the camera I was using was screwed up, deciding
on its own exposures. I'd purchased an LX from a list member and,
unbeknownst to me, it was in need of repair, so most shots were way under
or over exposed. A shame, really, as only a few frames were salvageable.
Anyway, I digress ... a lower angle would not have caught the sign as well,
which was always angled somewhat upwards towards passersby.
Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.
Shel
From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Great subject. Nice range of grayscale. I would crop a little tighter,
but that's highly subjective. I might also have lowered the camera
about a couple of feet when shooting if it could have been done without
destroying the mood or drawing too much attention. But it's a very nice
shot as is.
On Oct 17, 2004, at 12:42 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/02-3shh.html
