Hi Shel, I also see the whole image, but only by a whisker because I have the "Office" toolbar permanently docked to the top of my screen. I could autohide it, but then it would unnerve me to by jumping in and out when the cursor touches the screen edge.
Bruce hit right onto my feeling about this picture, that the role of the standing man is ambiguous. Is he associated with the performance? Is he merely a bystander? Or is he a bystander who has ingratiated himself into the performance? What is clear is that he is the most visually interesting part of the picture, while the man whose story the picture tells is secondary. But further, I'm underwhelmed by the tonal quality of this picture. Here again it's obvious that the standing man is pivotal to the shot, because all of the optimisation is upon him. He is wonderfully tonally rendered, but the plastic drums, the building opposite, and the white car behind the drummer all are practically toneless. If you tell me that this is a scan from a print, and that you disdain digital post processing, and prefer to faithfully reproduce the print, and that you don't care about tonal quality outside the subject matter of a picture, then I'll withdraw my criticism. Not because the print (if there is one) couldn't be better, but because correcting what I consider to be problem areas without obvious burning and dodging transitions would be a challenge not justified by the needs of a casual PESO PAW forum. Then again, if you do digitally post process your shots, there are several pathways to optimising all the tonal areas of a picture. The fact that you didn't use one of them suggests you have chosen the altruistic path of image purity and integrity. That's my good spin on it, anyway ;-) regards, Anthony Farr > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hello Shel, > > First off, I can see the entire photo and caption with no scrolling. > > Now on to the pic, the B&W tonal range is very good - another > technically good shot/processing. Somehow, this shot doesn't quite do > it for me. I'm thinking that perhaps the angle with the fire just > doesn't show any intensity or something. The guy on the right must > have some significance, but I am not sure what - participant or > observer? Perhaps a steeper angle to show the fire going into his > mouth more from the side. But I do like the context with the sign > visible. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce >
