Hello Dario, You have explained yourself well in this post. Based on what you said, the title is misleading to me as I understood it to mean that the shadow was the subject. What I was suggesting would be to exactly make the shadow be the subject and would change the intent of the photo. So perhaps all you really need to do is change the title to something closer to what you were trying to convey and all would be well.
-- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, September 8, 2005, 12:35:47 PM, you wrote: DB> Bruce Dayton wrote: >>I had the same problem as Frank. Without the title I might not have >> noticed the shadow. DB> Ghosts are elusive, for you too :-) >> I think the subject is too obscured. I think a >> different angle where only a bit of the actual rose was visible - >> almost straight on, where we could see the rose casting the shadow, >> but the shadow being the bulk of the image would have worked better >> for me. DB> I'm not sure I understand the angle you mean, so forgive me (and please DB> explain further) if I don't get your idea. DB> However, remember that it was not my intention to depict a shadow. I saw a DB> rather cool scene and I wanted to render it at its best, before it was gone. DB> Of course, I'm not sure I succeded in making the best of it, but I'm sure I DB> didn't want a plain picture of a shadow as the main subject, with part of a DB> rose in the foreground or beside it. The tables splitting the picture into DB> two exact halves is another key effect of my composition. Would it be DB> possible to retain such an effect from your point of taking the picture? DB> Bruce, I'm not saying that your suggested picture doesn't work, but I'm DB> afraid it could turn to be another diferent picture. Maybe better, but not DB> an improvement of mine. DB> Or maybe I've completely misunderstood you suggestion... DB> Dario
