On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > >> frank theriault wrote: >> >>> I was thinking this might work better in colour even before Larry's >>> comment in another thread about my recent use of colour. I think the >>> colour version works much better than the B&W. I think that the >>> suburbs generally work better in colour: >>> >>> http://knarfdummyblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/lawn-ornament.html >>> >>> Here's the BW version for comparison: >>> >>> http://knarfinthecity.blogspot.com/2010/08/lawn-ornament.html >>> >>> Comments? >>> >>> cheers, >>> frank >>> >>> >> Yeah the color version is better - because the joke reads better... I"m not >> crazy about the square format here , tho. >> ann > > They are two entirely different photos. I think that I like the color one > better. They're both nice, but neither one totally grabs me. > > The "nearly square" format doesn't quite work. With this basic composition, > I'd go completely square, trimming the right side so that it was the same > distance from the right handle as the left wheel is from the bottom then trim > the left to make it exactly square. > > I agree with others about the cluttered background and the tree in the > middle, what I think would be the best crop (although it would be a different > photo) would be to crop the left side just keeping a sliver of light to the > left of the tree, and use that to frame the left side of the picture. I think > that all the clutter on the left side of the frame distracts from the picture. > > YMMV, it'd be a very different picture than the one you've got, and I don't > know what your artistic intent was.
I don't have artistic intent. I just see stuff and take pictures of it. As for the "nearly square" format, didn't really choose it, I merely had to crop out some crap on the left hand side of the frame. There was nothing on the top or bottom that I wanted to crop, so I left it as is after the LHS was cropped out. Yes it's cluttered. That's part of what attracted me and made me shoot. Don't know why, it just did. As for the DOF, it was shot at f2.5 on my f1.7 50mm. I'm not going to get a lot shallower DOF than I have now. Someone said something about a re-shoot: I don't do re-shoots. Whatever photo was there at that moment is what I took. Maybe one day I'll walk by there again and see another one to take, and if I do I'll take it. But it won't be a re-shoot. It will be a completely different picture. ;-) Thanks all for the comments. I appreciate them all, and thanks for looking. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
