Shouldn't they be closer then? I see them (the couple of tree in the foreground) too small to be important and too large to be noticeable (in a sense of a subject) , but well, that's my opinion, I'm not a postcard buyer anyway ;-)
On 5/9/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's part of what I think makes the image, the little knoll with the pine > trees in the foreground, in front of the expansive view. :-) > > Thanks for your comments. > > > Tom C. > > > >From: "Fernando Terrazzino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> > >Subject: Re: Looking at Pictures and PESO > >Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:24:24 -0400 > > > >My subjective opinion ;-) > > > >When I opened the image the first thing I looked was the pine tree (is > >that pine?) on the lower left part of the image. Might be your > >intention, but that's what bugs me, if that tree was not there I would > >like the image better, the photo has an interesting "triangle" shape > >in the bottom (the one defined by the group of trees in the lower > >part) the fog separates these trees from the other formation of trees > >that are in the middle right, and the horizon is nice, although I > >wouldn't bother seen a touch more of sky. > > > >So in mi opinion, nice shapes formed be the trees, would like it > >better without the pine tree on the lower left. It's probably a nice > >photo to see large rather than in a postcard. > > > >You get an "A -" ;o) > > > > > >On 5/9/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here's a photo I've been debating adding to my portfolio for a long > >time. > > > > > > It's not a knock-your-socks-off kind of image, but I find it appealing > > > nevertheless. I'm considering using it in a collection of greeting > >cards... > > > going with my "Unnoticed Idaho" theme. > > > > > > So what does the group think, and why? > > > > > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5720249&size=lg > > > > > > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I'm my own worst critic and a pretty ruthless one at that. My > >editing > > > > >is pretty harsh and goes something like this: "crap, crap, crap, > >crap, > > > > >meh, crap, WHAT WAS I DOING?, good, crap, crap, good, good, crap..." > > > > >what I consider crap, others may consider "good enough." For > >example, > > > > >if something isn't perfectly sharp where I want it to be perfectly > > > > >sharp, it doesn't get a second chance, regardless of the subject > >(unless > > > > >it is a super rare species and I won't get another chance to > >photograph > > > > >it). > > > > > > > > > >Christian > > > > >http://photography.skofteland.net > > > > > > > > > > > > >Good man! That's exactly the same way it goes with me. > > > > > > > >The last mistake I made in this area was the "Falling Water" photo > >which > > > >some regular commenters had some issues with. It was the best of the > >40 or > > > >so shots I had taken that morning and I let my excitement with being > >there > > > >and actually viewing the scene pollute my judgement about the resulting > > > >image. > > > > > > > >Tom C. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > [email protected] > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ > > > >-- > >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >[email protected] > >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
