Thank you. Appreciated.
John
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:40:09 +0100, Frantisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, I missed the original, but that one is a very nice photograph!
Frantisek (I slightly prefer the BW)
Good light!
fra
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera
Hi, I missed the original, but that one is a very nice photograph!
Frantisek (I slightly prefer the BW)
Good light!
fra
I preferred keeping the foreshore, but it was so asker that after
straightening the horizon there didn't seem to be a good way to keep it.
Had there been more shore showing I'd have tried the crop both with and
without it.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: John Forbes
> I think it was Cotty
Actually, I lightened the original one I posted, from which Shel cropped
off the beach. When I re-did the pic, I left the colours and brightness
pretty much alone, so it is darker than the Shel version.
I agree about the oppressive feeling, but a sunny seaside postcard was not
what I was af
On 4/21/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My "brighter, less contrasty" version is John's original, just
> trimmed and cropped. I made no other adjustments to the photo.
>
It's amazing, but now that I look at the two again, yours is "lighter"
looking (note: I'm not saying "brigh
On 4/21/05, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm with Shel on this one.
Shockingly, so am I .
Seeing where the pier ends seems an important element to giving the
pier it's proper "space" in the frame.
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
On 21/4/05, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I think it was Cotty who suggested losing the foreshore and cropping
>tighter.
Indeed. By cropping tighter I meant just losing the beach :-)
> Shel's version isn't a tighter crop, but he too foregoes the
>foreshore.
Yeah, like that!
I think it was Cotty who suggested losing the foreshore and cropping
tighter. Shel's version isn't a tighter crop, but he too foregoes the
foreshore. Frankly, I think both approaches work. There's more than one
way to skin a cat.
Thanks for all your comments and suggestions.
John
On Thu,
I like the tighter crop.
Godfrey
On Apr 21, 2005, at 7:10 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
John.
The color version is much better than the B&W, but I think you cropped
the
pic way too much. My thought was to correct the perspective and just
trim
the photo a bit to compemsate for the tilt.
http://home.
On Apr 21, 2005, at 2:33 AM, John Forbes wrote:
http://www.johnpforbes.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/pier/pier.html
I hope you will agree that the result is a marked improvement.
Yes. :-)
Godfrey
Ah, I missed the original thread. (I'm up to 1475 unread PDML emails)
:)
>-Original Message-
>From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 1:19 PM
>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>Subject: RE: Reappierance
>
> My "brigh
My "brighter, less contrasty" version is John's original, just
trimmed and cropped. I made no other adjustments to the photo.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Jon Paul Schelter
>
> The colour version is definitely a great shot - I'm torn between Shel's
> brighter (less contrasty?) version
I'm with Shel on this one.
Shel Belinkoff mused:
>
> John.
>
> The color version is much better than the B&W, but I think you cropped the
> pic way too much. My thought was to correct the perspective and just trim
> the photo a bit to compemsate for the tilt.
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~my
The colour version is definitely a great shot - I'm torn between Shel's
brighter (less contrasty?) version, and John's original dark one. The
tighter crop also darkens the mood a bit, it seems to me. The B&W is
good, but loses some of the punch for me. All in all, a beautiful shot
to my untraine
On 21/4/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
>The color version is much better than the B&W, but I think you cropped the
>pic way too much. My thought was to correct the perspective and just trim
>the photo a bit to compemsate for the tilt.
>
>http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/straigh
John.
The color version is much better than the B&W, but I think you cropped the
pic way too much. My thought was to correct the perspective and just trim
the photo a bit to compemsate for the tilt.
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/straighten.jpg
Shel
> On 4/21/05, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTE
Wonderful!
I like the color version best, too.
Rick
--- John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Responding to suggestions from Cotty, Shel, and
> others, I have recropped,
> levelled and undone some colour corrections to my
> original pier picture.
> I've also added a B&W version for those
On 21/4/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
> I
>don't tend to notice tilt, so that's less consequential to me.
Mark!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On 4/21/05, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Responding to suggestions from Cotty, Shel, and others, I have recropped,
> levelled and undone some colour corrections to my original pier picture.
> I've also added a B&W version for those who thought that would look
> better. I have to say I
On 21/4/05, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
>http://www.johnpforbes.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/pier/pier.html
>
>I hope you will agree that the result is a marked improvement. I'm
>certainly pleased. Thanks for the input.
Yep, colour for me to John. CRACKING shot. You've nailed it for me.
Responding to suggestions from Cotty, Shel, and others, I have recropped,
levelled and undone some colour corrections to my original pier picture.
I've also added a B&W version for those who thought that would look
better. I have to say I still prefer the colour.
http://www.johnpforbes.pwp
21 matches
Mail list logo
