On 15 Nov 2004 at 15:52, Keith Whaley wrote: > Maybe ¾" off the left side, leave the rest alone...
Thanks for the suggestion Keith, I tend to get so bound into preserving the aspect ratio that I sometimes limit my options prematurely. On 16 Nov 2004 at 1:06, Jens Bladt wrote: > I kinda like it like this...:-) > > http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p9173060.html > Jens Hi Jens, another interesting suggestion, it almost looks like a 100% square crop could work, if only I hadn't chopped off the top signs, the problem was I ran out of space. On 15 Nov 2004 at 17:28, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Hi Rob, > > I'll put the pic up later tonight, when traffic slows down. Also the other > photo we were working on. They'll be at: > > http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/rob/ > > This one's not too bad, though. A little off the left side, and some from > the bottom, brings the main part of the image a bit more to the foreground, > keeps the nice perspective, but loses just a scosh of extraneous detail. I'd > have liked to have seen more of the signs on the fence. The ones at the top are > truncated. Color looked a little blue on my monitor, so I tweaked that as well. > Might also work nicely as a B&W pic, but didn't play with it in that regard at > all. It's a good pic, although it looks just a little sterile. It doesn't need > much "saving." Hi Shel, Yes I see, you didn't take much just tightened the left and bottom preserving the aspect ratio. It looks like it was a bit too cool for most people (Paul S gave it a good warm up :-), I try not to fiddle with the colour too much, although it was shot in bright sunlight at that stage of the day there wasn't a cloud in the sky so I suspect the blue of the sky cooled the pic somewhat. I'm sad now that I cut off the top signs, I'm sure I could have got them in somehow. Didn't think of making it a B&W, I guess I was too distracted by the colour. Thanks for having a go at it, it's a shot I had to take for the record but I was a bit out of water WRT composition. On 16 Nov 2004 at 3:40, Lasse Karlsson wrote: > I don't know what you want the picture to show, or in what respect you want to > save it. Anyway, I think I do see that there's supposed to be a picture in there > that could get a better presentation. Hi Lasse, that's what I would have liked to say :-) > I played around with it and twisted it a bit and added a bit of sunshine to it > (yeah, I know you didn't ask for that...), but I can't honestly say that I found > any evident solution. I uploaded a handful for you to look at, at: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=448406 Thanks, the transformations make it a completely different shot, interesting, I might make some experiments myself. You see you weren't alone warming it up either. The tight top crop on the 4th and 6th versions really removes some of the clutter up top. It's a pity the hat wasn't out front some place, it may have provided more balance to the original image. > Btw. what's the story to this shot? The story is that there really isn't one. I didn't see who belongs to the signs, there was absolutely no one there, I think I'll have to go back one time to put a face to the signs, I'm sure it would be an interesting one! Cheers and thanks to all who took the time to present their perspectives, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
