I like both of these. The tight crops add interest. The imperfections
are minor and don't diminish the impact of the pics.
Thanks for sharing.
paul
On Feb 27, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
Like Bruce says, the first is a bit better but they both offer a
different perspective on photographing the birds. The sharp eyes and
cut off parts add to the impression of being very close. Regards,
Bob S.
On 2/27/06, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Christian,
First shot is pretty nice. I don't mind the washed out sky. The
cropped tail is too bad, but doesn't ruin the image. I like that you
are presented something a little different in a bird picture. The
image almost gives me a feeling of being close to this bird, more like
a pet or something.
The second one is good too, but doesn't grab me as much.
I do appreciate you sharing your efforts. You provide inspiration and
ideas for me that I am thankful for.
Keep up the good work!
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Sunday, February 26, 2006, 4:05:34 PM, you wrote:
C> 2 images from today for your review:
C> http://photography2.skofteland.net:8080/displayimage.php?pos=-49
C> (no cropping; basically straight from the RAW conversion; a little
web
C> sharpening)
C> Not quite - because I was trying for a nicely back-lit shot of a
gull in
C> flight but the sky is a bit washed out and the tail is cut off.
C> and
C> http://photography2.skofteland.net:8080/displayimage.php?pos=-50
C> (no cropping; basically straight from the RAW conversion; a little
web
C> sharpening)
C> Not quite - because well, I don't like the background and I'm
unsure of
C> the composition.
C> Comments are always welcome
C> Thanks for looking.
