----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" > This confuses me. Are you trying to keep the proportions of
the cropped
> image the same? Otherwise, you just crop off the bottom, without losing
> any sky.
Nice, Moose, I like them. :-)
Yes, I wanted to not lose anymore of the sky and clouds, and I was trying to
keep a certain proportion/ measurement. I do have some I cropped at a 10x8,
which is so-so. I liked Mt Garfield and the Bookcliffs higher up in the
image rather than lower towards the bottom. Darkening the foreground as you
have done works wonders.
> Not all that much to do. Mostly, I cropped the bottoms and darkened the
> foreground that was left. I left in a subtle amount of natural looking
> detail in the foregrounds. As long as I was in there, I spiced up the
> skies a little, but I'm not sure they needed it
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Candace/Sunrise1.htm> .
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Candace/Sunrise2.htm>
I always enjoy seeing your efforts at improvement or just simply showing us
a different take on the image. Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes not,
sometimes I agree with no one but myself ;-)) But I always learn something,
so thank you. :-)
>> BTW, they are straight from the camera (aside from cropping) there's
>> been nothing done to them.
>>
> Something I find with my pics is that some are ready to go right out of
> camera or scanner while others taken at pretty much the same time and
> place, but with different subjects, may benefit from a lot of work.
I hear you on that subject! It often catches me by surprise, the images I
could swear are going to be perfect but end up needing way more work than
I'd wanted. On the other hand, many's the time I've thought I'd be spending
at least some time on an image, and pull it up and love it straight outta
the box. :-)
Candace
>
> Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|