The thing is...when you see someone perched on that high and somewhat
dangerous perch , with or without camera in hand,
there is a certain evisceral reaction, I imagine ( Had I been there, I
would have fretted, probably felt a bit of vertigo) but
visually the elements just are not as interesting ... the color, the
light, etc. the guy's beautifully lit back and the blurry waves
tell a big story and everything is nicely balanced in the frame.
ann
On 2/4/2016 5:27 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Larry Colen <l...@red4est.com> wrote:
I'd actually crop out the lower left cutting off about half the space
between him and the left and between him in the bottom. This would put the
front of his body rather than the back of it on the "one third" line.
Thanks, Larry. I see what you mean and why, but doing that takes away
the steepness of the rock on which he is balanced. It then becomes
close to this:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=18183533&size=lg
which I think has better color and light, but lacks the drama by
hiding much of the rock on which he is perched. The subject has not
moved at all in the two version; the only differences are my
viewpoint and what is left our of the frame.
Jack and Rick, thanks for looking and thanks for your comments as well.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
--
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.
