Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
thank you for both comments, Boris! Godfrey On Apr 22, 2006, at 10:04 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/05.htm
Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
Thanks, Unca Mikey! Godfrey On Apr 21, 2006, at 8:03 PM, Unca Mikey wrote: First, I like the photo, it's quite appealing, esp in the larger image. I am impressed one can read the NO DOGS sign. Second, this is one of the most entertaining discussions of a photo I've read on PDML in a long time. Discussions of a half degree this way or that way made me larf -- when I decided a few years ago to start playing with photography again, the biggest problem I had was getting the darn snaps straight! And to this day I get so tickled when a shot is lined up just the way I want it. *UncaMikey On Apr 21, 2006, at 6:43 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: From last Sunday morning's visit to the Santa Cruz wharf: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm
Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
Hi! From last Sunday morning's visit to the Santa Cruz wharf: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm It works best in a large print. I've included a 1000x1500 pixel rendering to see it better, if you have the bandwidth and display space. Comments, critique, all appreciated. Godfrey, I have to agree with others, it is right heavy... Now, I am not sure that rotation will make it better. The composition is right heavy... At least to my eyes... It does work as it is too... It is indeed quite lovely. So please don't take my comment above too seriously. Boris
PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
From last Sunday morning's visit to the Santa Cruz wharf: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm It works best in a large print. I've included a 1000x1500 pixel rendering to see it better, if you have the bandwidth and display space. Comments, critique, all appreciated. best, Godfrey
Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
Interesting in its minimalism. But this is such a geometric composition that I think it requires complete accuracy. It appears to need a counterclockwise rotation of about half a degree. Paul On Apr 21, 2006, at 6:43 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: From last Sunday morning's visit to the Santa Cruz wharf: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm It works best in a large print. I've included a 1000x1500 pixel rendering to see it better, if you have the bandwidth and display space. Comments, critique, all appreciated. best, Godfrey
Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
Much better large. I rather like it. -- Best regards, Bruce Friday, April 21, 2006, 3:43:17 PM, you wrote: GD From last Sunday morning's visit to the Santa Cruz wharf: GDhttp://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm GD It works best in a large print. I've included a 1000x1500 pixel GD rendering to see it better, if you have the bandwidth and display space. GD Comments, critique, all appreciated. GD best, GD Godfrey
Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
LOL ... I was wondering who would be the first to suggest rotation. ;-) It's hard to judge. I've used the edge of the wharf as a reference line and Photoshop suggests -.09 degree rotation. If I use the horizon, it suggests -.2 degrees. Problem is that when I do the rotation, it looks like it's leaning the other way as the lamp and bench fool the eye. G On Apr 21, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Interesting in its minimalism. But this is such a geometric composition that I think it requires complete accuracy. It appears to need a counterclockwise rotation of about half a degree. Paul On Apr 21, 2006, at 6:43 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: From last Sunday morning's visit to the Santa Cruz wharf: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm It works best in a large print. I've included a 1000x1500 pixel rendering to see it better, if you have the bandwidth and display space. Comments, critique, all appreciated. best, Godfrey
Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
thanks bruce! G On Apr 21, 2006, at 4:07 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Much better large. I rather like it. -- Best regards, Bruce Friday, April 21, 2006, 3:43:17 PM, you wrote: GD From last Sunday morning's visit to the Santa Cruz wharf: GDhttp://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm GD It works best in a large print. I've included a 1000x1500 pixel GD rendering to see it better, if you have the bandwidth and display space. GD Comments, critique, all appreciated. GD best, GD Godfrey
Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
I'd have been the first had I seen the pic before Paul LOL I played around a bit with the rotation and settled on a 0.04 degree rotation, which looks pretty good to these old eyes. At 0.05 degrees I'm starting to see, or feel, the lamp tilting the other way. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 4/21/2006 4:28:49 PM Subject: Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG LOL ... I was wondering who would be the first to suggest rotation. ;-) It's hard to judge. I've used the edge of the wharf as a reference line and Photoshop suggests -.09 degree rotation. If I use the horizon, it suggests -.2 degrees. Problem is that when I do the rotation, it looks like it's leaning the other way as the lamp and bench fool the eye. G On Apr 21, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Interesting in its minimalism. But this is such a geometric composition that I think it requires complete accuracy. It appears to need a counterclockwise rotation of about half a degree. http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm
Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
I would rotate to straighten the deck and then use transform to straighten the light pole. Paul On Apr 21, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I'd have been the first had I seen the pic before Paul LOL I played around a bit with the rotation and settled on a 0.04 degree rotation, which looks pretty good to these old eyes. At 0.05 degrees I'm starting to see, or feel, the lamp tilting the other way. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 4/21/2006 4:28:49 PM Subject: Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG LOL ... I was wondering who would be the first to suggest rotation. ;-) It's hard to judge. I've used the edge of the wharf as a reference line and Photoshop suggests -.09 degree rotation. If I use the horizon, it suggests -.2 degrees. Problem is that when I do the rotation, it looks like it's leaning the other way as the lamp and bench fool the eye. G On Apr 21, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Interesting in its minimalism. But this is such a geometric composition that I think it requires complete accuracy. It appears to need a counterclockwise rotation of about half a degree. http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm
Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
Nice one Godfrey. It looks fine to me but I can see what the others mean. Maybe it because I just woke up, but when I read people saying rotate it 0.04 degrees I start laughing. This is photography people, not precision engineering. :-) Dave S On 4/22/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From last Sunday morning's visit to the Santa Cruz wharf: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm It works best in a large print. I've included a 1000x1500 pixel rendering to see it better, if you have the bandwidth and display space. Comments, critique, all appreciated. best, Godfrey
Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
Dave, Sometimes photography requires precision. I have to laugh at your comment ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maybe it because I just woke up, but when I read people saying rotate it 0.04 degrees I start laughing. This is photography people, not precision engineering. :-) http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm
Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
:-) Glad to see the humor was reciprocated. Dave S. On 4/22/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, Sometimes photography requires precision. I have to laugh at your comment ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maybe it because I just woke up, but when I read people saying rotate it 0.04 degrees I start laughing. This is photography people, not precision engineering. :-) http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm
Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
I'm glad you folks are having so much fun with this one. I quite like it. Thanks for all the interest! Godfrey On Apr 21, 2006, at 6:48 PM, David Savage wrote: :-) Glad to see the humor was reciprocated. Dave S. On 4/22/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, Sometimes photography requires precision. I have to laugh at your comment ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maybe it because I just woke up, but when I read people saying rotate it 0.04 degrees I start laughing. This is photography people, not precision engineering. :-) http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm
Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
First, I like the photo, it's quite appealing, esp in the larger image. I am impressed one can read the NO DOGS sign. Second, this is one of the most entertaining discussions of a photo I've read on PDML in a long time. Discussions of a half degree this way or that way made me larf -- when I decided a few years ago to start playing with photography again, the biggest problem I had was getting the darn snaps straight! And to this day I get so tickled when a shot is lined up just the way I want it. *UncaMikey On Apr 21, 2006, at 6:43 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: From last Sunday morning's visit to the Santa Cruz wharf: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm
Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
Hey, I like it too, otherwise I'd not have downloaded it and played around with various degrees of rotation in PS. My comment that 0.04 degrees seemed to be a good compromise was not at all tongue in cheek. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 4/21/2006 7:54:22 PM Subject: Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG I'm glad you folks are having so much fun with this one. I quite like it. Thanks for all the interest! http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm
Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG
Sorry if that came off a little brusque. I'm genuinely pleased that you and others are enjoying the photo, and playing with it too. Gives me ideas. Godfrey On Apr 21, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hey, I like it too, otherwise I'd not have downloaded it and played around with various degrees of rotation in PS. My comment that 0.04 degrees seemed to be a good compromise was not at all tongue in cheek. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 4/21/2006 7:54:22 PM Subject: Re: PAW 2006 - 04 - GDG I'm glad you folks are having so much fun with this one. I quite like it. Thanks for all the interest! http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/04.htm
