Paul
On Oct 17, 2004, at 9:35 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
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
