Re: Should I crop this photo?
David J Taylor
> Or otherwise enhance it? Or just leave it as is?
>
> This is full-frame but reduced to 30% of original 10 MP size.
>
> Opinions welcome.
>
> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_6118dt.jpg
It all seems a little "central" to me, both the tree and the birds, both
horizontally and vertically. Perhaps cropping a little on the left to
give the impression of the birds entering the photo might help?
See what pleases /you/.
Cheers,
David
ray
> Or otherwise enhance it? Or just leave it as is?
>
> This is full-frame but reduced to 30% of original 10 MP size.
>
> Opinions welcome.
>
> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_6118dt.jpg
I don't think it would help much - the composition is simply not as good
as it could be. All the points of interest are centered.
Frank ess
I'd also like to have a little less space on the left so the birds had
more room to fly into; now they seem to be posing. To maintain the
same aspect ratio you'd lose some of the top or bottom, both of which
are useful. Probably no-crop. Or extreme panorama aspect, forget the
tree.
--
Frank ess
MaryL
"M-M" <nospa...@ny.more> wrote in message
news:nospam.m-m-2E9CC...@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
> Or otherwise enhance it? Or just leave it as is?
>
> This is full-frame but reduced to 30% of original 10 MP size.
>
> Opinions welcome.
>
> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_6118dt.jpg
>
>
>
> m-m
> http://www.mhmyers.com
I would like to see some cropping on the left, to show movement of the birds
to the right (and to avoid too much centering). Then play around with top
and bottom margins to get the desired proportions. It's too bad the tree is
so precisely centered behind the birds, but that's something you can't
really control--birds don't pause in flight to give you an opportunity to
change the setup!! I do like the "moody" atmosphere.
MaryL
D-Mac
> Or otherwise enhance it? Or just leave it as is?
>
> This is full-frame but reduced to 30% of original 10 MP size.
>
> Opinions welcome.
>
> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_6118dt.jpg
>
>
>
There are many "rules" relating to art (Photography too) that whilst may
be often broken for an effect are generally offered to help novices make
better pictures.
Probably the most significant is "the rule of thirds" although there are
many more Da-Vinci and others devised for their students.
Unfortunately this photo defies most of them and not to good effect
either. If you can't afford a book on Da-Vinci's development of them,
you find it a rewarding few hours browsing through the local libraries
books on art.
Sorry about the bluntness but if it were mine it would be in the trash
bin, even though it has an excellent subject and brilliant lighting display.
D-Mac.info
D-Mac
> In article <gpnk9n$c9b$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> coincidence of it all makes it art.
>
I don't dispute that. What I tried to say was I have plenty of similar
photos (Australian wildlife) that are just as attractive as yours but I
can't sell them because they look as "plain Jane" as yours does.
I use a Nikon D3 for these sort of shots now and even at it's fastest
shutter rate, only rarely get the shots I want. I think it's true to say
that the right equipment will produce regular (not necessarily all the
time) exceptional results. Lesser gear can get the same results but more
of a fluke happening.
Another idea you might consider is that composed differently, your photo
had the potential to make you a few grand over it's life. More than
enough to make it worth while owning the gear and spending the time
studying art for photographic composure.
D-Mac.info
John McWilliams
> In article <gposov$809$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> D-Mac <alien...@y7mail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't dispute that. What I tried to say was I have plenty of similar
>> photos (Australian wildlife) that are just as attractive as yours but I
>> can't sell them because they look as "plain Jane" as yours does.
>
>
> another the foreground. The third was called the "grace note".
>
> This photo only has 2 out of 3. A grace note would be a sun setting on
> the horizon, or a rainbow, or some horses somewhere.
Or cheerleaders.
mike
says...
> M-M wrote:
> > Or otherwise enhance it? Or just leave it as is?
> >
> > This is full-frame but reduced to 30% of original 10 MP size.
> >
> > Opinions welcome.
> >
> > http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_6118dt.jpg
> >
> >
> >
>
> There are many "rules" relating to art (Photography too) that whilst may
> be often broken for an effect are generally offered to help novices make
> better pictures.
>
> Probably the most significant is "the rule of thirds" although there are
> many more Da-Vinci and others devised for their students.
>
> Unfortunately this photo defies most of them and not to good effect
> either. If you can't afford a book on Da-Vinci's development of them,
> you find it a rewarding few hours browsing through the local libraries
> books on art.
>
format, top to bottom included, with the birds centered right to left.
The hill-top level more or less fits the rule of thirds vertically and
the entire tree just fills the frame.
Mike
D-Mac
>> photos (Australian wildlife) that are just as attractive as yours but I
>> can't sell them because they look as "plain Jane" as yours does.
>
>
> another the foreground. The third was called the "grace note".
>
> This photo only has 2 out of 3. A grace note would be a sun setting on
> the horizon, or a rainbow, or some horses somewhere.
>
Here's a little Photoshop trick that might help you "play around" with
your photo. The picture lacks the basic "rule of thirds" for composure.
You can change this and find an ideal crop area like this:
Duplicate the image.
Using the crop tool, make the crop size 1/3rd of the width and 1/3rd of
the height. Draw an area for cropping any size you like and move it
around, making it larger and smaller until you like what you see and
then crop it.
Do this as many times as you like and alter the aspect ration too, until
you reach a decision you are either happy with or not.
D-Mac.info
D-Mac
> In article <gppkal$b1m$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> D-Mac <alien...@y7mail.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's a little Photoshop trick that might help you "play around" with
>> your photo. The picture lacks the basic "rule of thirds" for composure.
>> You can change this and find an ideal crop area like this:
>>
>> Duplicate the image.
>> Using the crop tool, make the crop size 1/3rd of the width and 1/3rd of
>> the height. Draw an area for cropping any size you like and move it
>> around, making it larger and smaller until you like what you see and
>> then crop it.
>>
>> Do this as many times as you like and alter the aspect ration too, until
>> you reach a decision you are either happy with or not.
>
>
>
>
Because you asked for advise. If you'd rather not take it or knew it
anyway, you should had used it yourself and not become sarcastic when
someone offered you what you asked for.
D-Mac.info
George Kerby
On 3/17/09 3:26 PM, in article gpp12h$p57$2...@reader.motzarella.org, "John
McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
Hooter's waitresses.
ray
> In article <gposov$809$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> D-Mac <alien...@y7mail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't dispute that. What I tried to say was I have plenty of similar
>> photos (Australian wildlife) that are just as attractive as yours but I
>> can't sell them because they look as "plain Jane" as yours does.
>
>
> I once read that a great photo needs 3 things. One is the background,
> another the foreground. The third was called the "grace note".
>
> This photo only has 2 out of 3. A grace note would be a sun setting on
> the horizon, or a rainbow, or some horses somewhere.
I've not studied the subject extensively, but it seems to me, rather
intuitively, that the real problem is that there is basically just one
point of focus. All you can really 'see' are the birds with the tree as
background. So cropping, for example to exploit the 'rule of thirds'
won't even help much because all the focus of interest shifts with the
birds.
So, I guess, we're maybe 'onto' about the same point - it would be much
better if there were another point of interest.
Passin'thru...
>Or otherwise enhance it? Or just leave it as is?
>
>This is full-frame but reduced to 30% of original 10 MP size.
>
>Opinions welcome.
>
>http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_6118dt.jpg
Unfortunately, for all the reasons already stated, this is about the only
crop that would work
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3545/3369693480_4cc9eda207_o.jpg
depending on how far you were from them, that is.
David J Taylor
Neat idea!
David
Caesar Romano
Re Re: Should I crop this photo?:
>
>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3545/3369693480_4cc9eda207_o.jpg
>
>depending on how far you were from them, that is.
Nice lead.
George Kerby
On 3/20/09 6:23 AM, in article v3v6s41h9ltqqtrku...@4ax.com,
"Caesar Romano" <Sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
Hunting geese with a rifle? Doesn't leave much meat...
ray
Depends on the rifle and ammo.
Frank ess
Marty Fremen wrote:
> M-M <nospa...@ny.more> wrote:
>>>> Or otherwise enhance it? Or just leave it as is?
>>>>
>>>> This is full-frame but reduced to 30% of original 10 MP size.
>>>>
>>>> Opinions welcome.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_6118dt.jpg
>
> I think putting the birds and horizon on the 1/3 and 2/3 lines
> improves it: http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/6818/dsc6118dta.jpg
> I don't feel trimming the sides helps, the birds need the flying
> space.
Another birds-in-flight image with the sole virtue that it's
birds-in-flight; is there a straightforward way to make it more than
that?
93K image for easy viewing:
http://www.fototime.com/3AC0029571308EF/orig.jpg
999K version for something more criticizable:
http://www.fototime.com/F2172F605F158A0/orig.jpg
--
Frank ess