On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:42:06 -0800, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Frank ... > > This is a pretty good shot in that I think you captured the dog quite > nicely. It might be a more powerful photo if you moved in a bit closer, > framed a bit tighter, shot from a slightly lower vantage point, more from > the dog's level. Since you mentioned Erwitt, I cannot help but think of > the many photos he's presented that were made lower to the ground or showed > less of the people above the waist. > > The quality of the image is really poor on my screen, with lost detail in > the dog, a tonal imbalance (grass too dark, shadows dark with some blocked, > or close to blocked, details). I fiddled with it a bit and brought out a > broader tonality and opened things up a bit. I did that for myself mostly, > just to see how much detail there is in the image. If you'd care to see > the result, let me know. > > Regardless of my nit picking, I like the photo. > > Shel
Thanks for your thoughts, Shel. I am somewhat frustrated that I can't seem to get my scans to look like the print. I'm hoping that once I learn to use PS a bit better (waiting for the imminent arrival of a learning tool <g>), I can do a better job of it. For instance, the print is noticeably sharper. The buckle of the harness is much clearer on the print, and there's a black mesh on the side of the fellow's knapsack that's clearly visible in the print, but invisible on the scan. As for the tonality, well, I just hit "auto", and hope for the best. The other comments, re: getting down lower - yup, I agree: EE would've been down on the ground, and that might have made for a more interesting shot here. As far as the tighter framing, I did want to get both humans in there, especially the fellow (the owner?) on the left. But, on the whole, your points are all well taken, and as always, I thank you for your thoughtful analysis. cheers, frank
