Me too. The tighter crop loses even more context and doesn't improve the picture.
-- Bruce Sunday, May 29, 2005, 6:18:59 PM, you wrote: RW> I agree with Shel--better framing and much better RW> image quality in the original. RW> Rick RW> --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Frank ... it's cropped way too much and has lost >> most of whatever >> context it had. Plus, to my eye, the original scan >> was of poor enough >> quality that the image wouldn't take much more >> enlarging, so we are seeing >> more artifacts and "stuff" (an obscure technical >> term dating back to the >> mid-sixties, early seventies. See Geo Carlin >> definitions of stuff and >> sh!t). >> >> Shel >> >> >> > [Original Message] >> > From: frank theriault >> >> > After seeing some comments WRT my PAW from >> yesterday, I decided to >> > <gasp> crop it a bit to get the boy off centre. I >> also dodged mom's >> > face just a teeny bit (but not too much, I don't >> think). I resisted >> > the urge to sharpen the boy's face - or should I >> say that I tried, but >> > it looked overdone to my eyes, and I preferred it >> as is. I also >> > decided not to straighten it, as the window frames >> of the building in >> > the background are indeed horizontal, so in fact >> the bus is going up >> > hill. This is therefore an accurate depiction of >> the tilt (or rather >> > the lack thereof). >> > >> > With all that in mind, comments on the new and >> hopefully improved >> > version are appreciated: >> > >> > >> RW> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3407217&size=lg >> > >> > As a point of comparision, here's the original >> full-frame version: >> > >> > >> RW> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3403901&size=lg >> >> >> RW> __________________________________________________ RW> Do You Yahoo!? RW> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around RW> http://mail.yahoo.com
