I agree with Shel--better framing and much better image quality in the original.
Rick --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Frank ... it's cropped way too much and has lost > most of whatever > context it had. Plus, to my eye, the original scan > was of poor enough > quality that the image wouldn't take much more > enlarging, so we are seeing > more artifacts and "stuff" (an obscure technical > term dating back to the > mid-sixties, early seventies. See Geo Carlin > definitions of stuff and > sh!t). > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: frank theriault > > > After seeing some comments WRT my PAW from > yesterday, I decided to > > <gasp> crop it a bit to get the boy off centre. I > also dodged mom's > > face just a teeny bit (but not too much, I don't > think). I resisted > > the urge to sharpen the boy's face - or should I > say that I tried, but > > it looked overdone to my eyes, and I preferred it > as is. I also > > decided not to straighten it, as the window frames > of the building in > > the background are indeed horizontal, so in fact > the bus is going up > > hill. This is therefore an accurate depiction of > the tilt (or rather > > the lack thereof). > > > > With all that in mind, comments on the new and > hopefully improved > > version are appreciated: > > > > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3407217&size=lg > > > > As a point of comparision, here's the original > full-frame version: > > > > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3403901&size=lg > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
