I definitely agree. Less impact without it. Kenneth Waller
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 3:48 PM Subject: Re: Looking at Pictures and PESO > That's part of what I think makes the image, the little knoll with the > pine > trees in the foreground, in front of the expansive view. :-) > > Thanks for your comments. > > > Tom C. > > >>From: "Fernando Terrazzino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> >>Subject: Re: Looking at Pictures and PESO >>Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:24:24 -0400 >> >>My subjective opinion ;-) >> >>When I opened the image the first thing I looked was the pine tree (is >>that pine?) on the lower left part of the image. Might be your >>intention, but that's what bugs me, if that tree was not there I would >>like the image better, the photo has an interesting "triangle" shape >>in the bottom (the one defined by the group of trees in the lower >>part) the fog separates these trees from the other formation of trees >>that are in the middle right, and the horizon is nice, although I >>wouldn't bother seen a touch more of sky. >> >>So in mi opinion, nice shapes formed be the trees, would like it >>better without the pine tree on the lower left. It's probably a nice >>photo to see large rather than in a postcard. >> >>You get an "A -" ;o) >> >> >>On 5/9/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Here's a photo I've been debating adding to my portfolio for a long >>time. >> > >> > It's not a knock-your-socks-off kind of image, but I find it appealing >> > nevertheless. I'm considering using it in a collection of greeting >>cards... >> > going with my "Unnoticed Idaho" theme. >> > >> > So what does the group think, and why? >> > >> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5720249&size=lg >> > >> > >> > Tom C. >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >I'm my own worst critic and a pretty ruthless one at that. My >>editing >> > > >is pretty harsh and goes something like this: "crap, crap, crap, >>crap, >> > > >meh, crap, WHAT WAS I DOING?, good, crap, crap, good, good, crap..." >> > > >what I consider crap, others may consider "good enough." For >>example, >> > > >if something isn't perfectly sharp where I want it to be perfectly >> > > >sharp, it doesn't get a second chance, regardless of the subject >>(unless >> > > >it is a super rare species and I won't get another chance to >>photograph >> > > >it). >> > > > >> > > >Christian >> > > >http://photography.skofteland.net >> > > > >> > > >> > >Good man! That's exactly the same way it goes with me. >> > > >> > >The last mistake I made in this area was the "Falling Water" photo >>which >> > >some regular commenters had some issues with. It was the best of the >>40 or >> > >so shots I had taken that morning and I let my excitement with being >>there >> > >and actually viewing the scene pollute my judgement about the >> > >resulting >> > >image. >> > > >> > >Tom C. >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> > [email protected] >> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > >> >> >>-- >> >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ >> >>-- >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>[email protected] >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
