[LRflex] Re: Brule
- From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@xxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:35:42 -0700
David Young showed the cropped version.
Subject: [LRflex] Re: Brule
At 20/10/2007, you wrote:
>David
>
>It's a beautiful scene but I have to agree with Doug; that tree on the
>left attracts too much attention from the real interest behind it.
>
>Chris B
Hi Chris!
Do you find the square crop, any better?
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/Brule2.htm
<http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/Brule2.htm%3c%3c%3c%3c%3c%3c%3c%3c%3c>
<<<<<<<<<
Hi David,
It's a shame to find yourself between a rock and out of focus tree. In this
case it's such a neat photograph it requires being saved with a touch of
"heretic" photo manipulation. :-)
The square cropping takes away the "feel the original has" even with the out
of focus tree. So I'm going to make a suggestion some, if not many, will
barf at! Use photo shop very carefully and clone the tree out!!!!!!!!! You
need the whole frame to make the picture work .
Oh I know, I can hear some folks even without my bionic ears turned on
screaming about manipulation. Quite frankly in this case it's a simple form
of technical photo cropping as Ansel Adams would've done under this
circumstance. Only he'd have done it in some chemical darkroom non-computer
manner, but he'd have taken the tree out! The difference is, he'd have done
it and nobody would ever have seen the before photograph. We as common folk
would've only seen "another master piece as shot!" ;-)
The potential for a fine full frame photo is sitting there with merely a
touch of the brush, so just fix it! Never mind the whiners, just do it! And
remember the lesson learned ... "Always check the viewfinder edges 360
degrees before you shoot!"
What have you got to lose when you have such a good base for a fine finished
photograph? Now if I'd said something about "burning in the sky for a slight
enhancement" no one would peep, so what's the difference? Go for it, just do
it! :-)
ted
Other related posts:
