Hi Paul ... I played with a similar crop and it just seemed too tight to me. Be interested to see what others think. IMO, a little more space around the principals, showing a bit more of the environment, works better.
Your suggestion of a tighter crop for the web is interesting. Is that, do you think, a better way to show some photos? After all, it does not present a photo the way the photographer intended it to be seen (as if the web does in any case <LOL>). While it may be that a tighter crop, or other adjustments, are appropriate (for example, your recent sunset as more of a panorama), wouldn't the final format be a better representation of the photog's intention if the format and cropping were presented on the web as it was meant to be in the final print? I cannot help but think about seeing a wide screen movie on TV that has been cropped to fit the format of the TV screen. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 > >> http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/02-3shh.html
