On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:31:57 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Warning -- Trite alert! More d--- flowers! :-) > > While scoping out Mission San Jose in Fremont for the NorCal outing (we are > going somewhere else), I came across a barn next to a field of wild flowers > right in downtown Fremont. It was bordered by flowering trees (not sure what > kind: peaches, plums, something). It was pretty, pretty! > > So I did an immediate u turn and went back and found a private road. Drove up > it and finally found an unfenced field I could skip cross to get closer. > (Though I never really got close enough to the barn and windmill, etc.) > > Took about eight of these shots, all from slightly different perspectives. So > I don't know that this is the BEST one -- they are all about equally > good/bad. I realize there are some possible technical criticisms. But they > are PRETTY. > :-) > > Only that night, I started coughing... yup, sick rest of that day, next day, > next week. Still have the cough. > > Wasn't the smartest thing I have ever done. Sorry to rub it in for those in > colder climes, but mid-February is often when California hits early Spring. > > http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/pages/hayfever.htm > > Comments are welcome. (But not necessarily on my stupidity.) > > Marnie aka Doe :-)
It's not an easy thing to capture a blossom-laden tree and not have it look like a cliche, but I think you've done it here. The ramshackle fence, putting the tree high in the frame: they're both really good ideas that lift this above the banal. I think it's lovely. But, I'll keep saying this over and over: It's really hard to properly view photos that don't fit on my screen and that I have to scroll up and down to view. About 650 pixels on the vertical axis is what will fit on a screen to allow viewing without scrollage. Is this the same for everyone? I mean, I assume that if it's too big for me, it's too big for everyone else, right? Or is it possible that other's computers view things differently? Anyway, yours is 975 pixels, which (for me at least) is way too big on the vertical axis. The way a photo is presented does have an impact on how one perceives it - for better or worse. Just my two cents worth on that topic. Anyway, it's still a really nice photo. <g> cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
