On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Miserere <miser...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the tight composition actually works in your favour, so 200mm > was fine. The ball is placed perfectly in the frame, and at an > unbelievable angle to show the stitches, so I call Photoshop! (Yes > Frank, I know you didn't.) But while on the subject of Photoshop, if > you were unscrupulous, you would clone out the kid behind the pitcher, > which I imagine is one of the things you don't like about this image. > Despite that, I think the DoF is small enough that the picture still > works as is, and I like it a lot. > > Cheers, Yes, well, you certainly summed up my feelings pretty well. The second baseman behind him is a distraction (although at least he's nicely OOF). I have another shot of this pitcher in which you can see all of his right foot and the ball's a bit closer to him - much better composed I think - but he's badly OOF. Frustrating. Mind you in this one the stitching of the ball's a bit better in this one. Oh well, life (and photography) is full of compromises, isn't it? This is the best of an imperfect lot, and I'm satisfied with it. Hopefully there'll be lots of games this weekend - the park's 1/2 a block from my house - and I'll have the chance to shoot some more. Thanks to everyone who commented. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
