In message <YH8Lj.19018$9X3.6919@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Dudley Hanks
<hanks.dudley@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>
>"Sianlover" <sianlover@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:McRKy8iwaL$HFwuc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In message <mGSIj.26035$_v3.21089@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Dudley Hanks
>> <hanks.dudley@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>>>An ordinary picture of an extra-ordinary dog.
>>>
>>>http://www.geocities.com/hanks.dudley/index.html
>>>
>>>Shot in shutter priority at 1/200 second, 35mm equivalent, 1/3
>>>under-exposed, -1 stop flash compensation, using bracket mounted HF-DC1
>>>slave flash set to medium. I also had a lens hood installed as the sun
>>>was
>>>in a bad position, and I wanted to ****eld the lens of my A720 from any
>>>flare
>>>that might result.
>>>
>>>Dima had a great walk and enjoyed herself thoroughly.
>>>
>>>Take Care,
>>>Dudley
>>
>>
>> It's a decent enough pic of a nice-looking and obviously good dog.
It's
>> in focus. Anyone who doesn't find it pleasing must be a pretty
miserable
>> wretch.
>>
>> Technically I am pretty sure that what you should have done is centred
>> Dima on the horizontal plane, and avoided including the building.
However,
>> while that might be what you should have done, I much prefer what you
have
>> done.
>>
>> --
>> Sianlover
>
>Actually, I was trying to shoot the picture without any buildings. I
even
>asked a number of my friends and family members if I had managed to
exclude
>everything but the trees. Everybody said there was only trees.
>
>This is why I post here; photographers notice stuff that
non-photographers
>miss.
>
>Where in the photo is the building? Do you think I could crop the shot a
>bit tighter to cut it out while retaining the effect I obtained?
>
I see that someone has already told you where the building is and made
plain that it cannot easily be removed. I would add to this that I do
not think the building should be regarded as of any real consequence.
The overall image is quite attractive as is, and although a critical
photographer would be right to criticise such things, his standards are
obviously going to be rather higher and of a different nature to most
people's. In other words, what I am saying is that it is a good enough
picture even with the building.
If you want to make things a bit closer to "technically conventional" I
suggest that you might well:
1. Remove the left 30 percent of the image.
2. Remove the upper 40 percent of the image.
Those figures are what looks about right to me, but as in all things,
this is subjective.
Please bear in mind, though, that I am neither a professional
photographer nor a gifted amateur, and that Dima can probably take
better pictures than mine. So if anyone else here (other than "The
One") tells you to do things differently, you will be wise to ignore my
advice.
>Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it.
>
You are welcome.
>Take Care,
>Dudley
>
You too.
--
Sianlover
|
