Does the crop work?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: George Kerby on 4 May 2010 09:10 On 5/4/10 5:32 AM, in article hrot4u$rdq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > "LOL!" <lol(a)lol.org> wrote in message > news:kfrvt5lvel2i4jmpvlf9gjm4n5i9n243de(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 4 May 2010 02:26:09 -0700 (PDT), Vance <vance.lear(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On May 3, 5:31 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <dha...(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: >>>> http://www.nothingnotpossible.com/cgi-bin/NotPossible/UnderConstruction >>>> >>>> Take Care, >>>> Dudley >>> >>> Not really, at least to my eye. It's not the cropping down of the sky >>> area, but something else that makes it a little ungainly. Perhaps, >>> keeping the sky reducing crop, crop in from image left a bit. Just by >>> eye, maybe 3/4 of the length in along the lighter striped fabric of >>> the harness. That would put the emphasis properly on MIch by making >>> him a larger part of the composition in terms of visual mass (his size >>> and color as a percentage of the total image) and still leave the car >>> as an important element. >>> >>> Just a suggestion. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Vance >> >> >> Oooo, look everybody! >> >> Dudley conned another human into being his seeing-eye doggy for him! >> >> For FREE! >> >> Unless of course Vance got trained and was fed treats for this. >> >> LOL! >> >> Sit up and beg "Vance!" >> >> What a GOOD doggy you are! >> >> <pat> <pat> <pat> >> >> Now, for the real challenge "Vance", can you roll over and play dead? >> >> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > how about you?! > This troll IS well-trained, isn't it?!? Good job, Dudley!
From: Dudley Hanks on 4 May 2010 14:41 "George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:C8058701.446D3%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com... > > > > On 5/4/10 5:32 AM, in article hrot4u$rdq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, > "Tim > Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> "LOL!" <lol(a)lol.org> wrote in message >> news:kfrvt5lvel2i4jmpvlf9gjm4n5i9n243de(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 4 May 2010 02:26:09 -0700 (PDT), Vance <vance.lear(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On May 3, 5:31 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <dha...(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: >>>>> http://www.nothingnotpossible.com/cgi-bin/NotPossible/UnderConstruction >>>>> >>>>> Take Care, >>>>> Dudley >>>> >>>> Not really, at least to my eye. It's not the cropping down of the sky >>>> area, but something else that makes it a little ungainly. Perhaps, >>>> keeping the sky reducing crop, crop in from image left a bit. Just by >>>> eye, maybe 3/4 of the length in along the lighter striped fabric of >>>> the harness. That would put the emphasis properly on MIch by making >>>> him a larger part of the composition in terms of visual mass (his size >>>> and color as a percentage of the total image) and still leave the car >>>> as an important element. >>>> >>>> Just a suggestion. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Vance >>> >>> >>> Oooo, look everybody! >>> >>> Dudley conned another human into being his seeing-eye doggy for him! >>> >>> For FREE! >>> >>> Unless of course Vance got trained and was fed treats for this. >>> >>> LOL! >>> >>> Sit up and beg "Vance!" >>> >>> What a GOOD doggy you are! >>> >>> <pat> <pat> <pat> >>> >>> Now, for the real challenge "Vance", can you roll over and play dead? >>> >>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> >> how about you?! >> > > This troll IS well-trained, isn't it?!? > > Good job, Dudley! > It certainly is ... I post something; somebody (anybody) helps with details, and it immediately tries to intimidate / ridicule. It's response is faster and more predictable than Pavlov's dog salivating at it's expected reward... Even Mich has enough intelligence to think before acting... But, then again, Mich has a brain ... And, thanks George, for the comment. Take Care, Dudley
From: Dudley Hanks on 4 May 2010 15:05 "Vance" <vance.lear(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:85a032db-f8d4-461a-8873-7c4de8c71b2d(a)h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com... On May 3, 5:31 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <dha...(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > http://www.nothingnotpossible.com/cgi-bin/NotPossible/UnderConstruction > > Take Care, > Dudley Not really, at least to my eye. It's not the cropping down of the sky area, but something else that makes it a little ungainly. Perhaps, keeping the sky reducing crop, crop in from image left a bit. Just by eye, maybe 3/4 of the length in along the lighter striped fabric of the harness. That would put the emphasis properly on MIch by making him a larger part of the composition in terms of visual mass (his size and color as a percentage of the total image) and still leave the car as an important element. Just a suggestion. Regards, Vance Thanks, Vance, for the feedback. I've made a couple of crops as near as I can come to your directions, but I'm not sure if I've placed the left border at the spot you've recommended. In the first one, I left the sky as is and just took off the left side. In the second, I also took off the sky similar to the first crop I made. Just wondering if either looks better. Thanks, Dudley
From: Dudley Hanks on 4 May 2010 15:30 "LOL!" <lol(a)lol.org> wrote in message news:k3qvt55aq6vavq94ib9ec97kaou18v71om(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 4 May 2010 02:26:09 -0700 (PDT), Vance <vance.lear(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On May 3, 5:31 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <dha...(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: >>> http://www.nothingnotpossible.com/cgi-bin/NotPossible/UnderConstruction >>> >>> Take Care, >>> Dudley >> >>Not really, at least to my eye. It's not the cropping down of the sky >>area, but something else that makes it a little ungainly. Perhaps, >>keeping the sky reducing crop, crop in from image left a bit. Just by >>eye, maybe 3/4 of the length in along the lighter striped fabric of >>the harness. That would put the emphasis properly on MIch by making >>him a larger part of the composition in terms of visual mass (his size >>and color as a percentage of the total image) and still leave the car >>as an important element. >> >>Just a suggestion. >> >>Regards, >>Vance > > > Oooo, look everybody! > > Dudley conned another human into being his seeing-eye doggy for him! > > For FREE! > > Unless of course Vance got trained and was fed treats for this. > > LOL! > > Sit up and beg "Vance!" > > What a GOOD doggy you are! > > <pat> <pat> <pat> > > LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! > So, GR / LOL, you are now afraid to attack me directly? Instead, you try to intimidate / ridicule those in the group who have a soul? Perhaps, that's because you've already proven yourself incapable of producing any pics close to those produced by a blind photog? Or, perhaps it's because you can't equal the blind intellectually, either? Your approach now seems to be to insinuate I'm after free instruction, too cheap to pay for help? Well, it's not exactly like there are a lot of experts anywhere who can teach a blind person how to produce visual works of art. Are there? (Google photography course for the blind and see what you come up with ... not a lot of for hire instruction out there) I'm sure if you ask those who have responded to my posts, they would state that, while they are more than competant in the art / science themself, they have little experience in relating their expertise to a student who can't see the scene himself. How many music instructors out there would try to teach a deaf person to play the violin, and charge them for the hours it would take to master it? I'm not looking for free lessons. As mentioned before, I have a considerable amount of experience myself. You'll note my posts are not of the "how do I?" variety. They are of the "What do you think?" ilk. Not unlike the posts of many other individuals using this recreational group. What I do hope for is that interested individuals will take a few moments every now and then to just tell me what they see in, and what they think about, the images I create. Now, if you can offer a complete course that will teach a blind guy to take great pics, tell me about it and we'll talk price ... But, then again, that would go against the original spirit of Usenet, where any commercial activity was thoroughly flamed... So maybe you can just e-mail your proposal to me by replying to a message. The reply address is valid. If not, let's go back to directing your vitriol at me directly. I enjoyed ripping your diatribes to pieces. And, every now and then you indirectly helped me with your twisted logic... Take Care, Dudley
From: Ted Banks on 4 May 2010 15:46
On Tue, 04 May 2010 19:30:34 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >Well, it's not exactly like there are a lot of experts anywhere who can >teach a blind person how to produce visual works of art. Are there? >(Google photography course for the blind and see what you come up with ... >not a lot of for hire instruction out there) There's a very good reason for that. Most of humanity is sane. Well, saner than you at least. |