Strangely I disagree with you, Paul. However I do find the tree above
the mailbox to be distracting. This is one of those shots where you have
to wonder, would a different angle have worked better. But at the same
time one realizes that maybe there were no better angles, in which case
the question then becomes why did Shel bother showing this? Perhaps he
was just so enamored with this particular mailbox and the light, that he
did not even notice the picture? Of course, being an object
photographer, rather than a pretty picture photographer, myself I can
understand that mind state quite well.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I would think it would work better as a tight, very tight shot. The
mailbox is the only point of interest.
Paul
On May 16, 2006, at 7:50 PM, keith_w wrote:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Taken while walking through the neighborhood early this afternoon. I've
always wanted to photograph this scene,
Why?
...and even got a few shots in poor
light. Today the light was right ;-))
http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/mailbox2110s.html
I accidentally shot this at 1600 ISO, and was surprised at how
noise-free
the results were. The full rez PEF looks surprisingly sharp and clean
Tech Stuff: Pentax istDS, A50/1.4, ISO 1600, 1/160 @ f8.0
Shel
keith
