I might have cropped the top 1/3rd or 2/5ths of the sky out of the
original image and left your cropped-out right side area in place. That
would have eliminated some, but not all, of the over-blue sky in the top
left and top right hand corners.
Cropping the right side of the image looks to me to have intruded into
the rule of thirds whereby the roadway now occupies the bottom right
quadrant as compared to its placement in the middle third of the third
row down. I did not find the bush like tree in the lower right hand
corner of the original image to be a distraction. Indeed I found it to
be an interesting detail as my eye followed the curvature of the road.
Perhaps you could upload a third image for viewing based on cropping the
top 1/3rd or 2/5ths of the sky.
So much for personal aesthetics !
jh
On 2017-06-20 1:39 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
Following Philippe’s suggestion: crop away the right-most part so that the
image focuses on the curvy road more. And this also gets rid of the offending sky.
Cheers,
Nathan
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu <http://www.frozenlight.eu/>
http:// <http://www.greatpix.eu/>www.greatpix.eu
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws <http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws>Blog:
http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/ <http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/>
Cycling: http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/belgiangator
<http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/belgiangator>
YNWA
On 19 Jun 2017, at 13:43, John Hudson <OM4T@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, quite obviously, but what drove you to choose the cut off point and crop
out some portion of the image?
jh
On 2017-06-19 1:52 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
The cut-off point is exactly where I placed it, of course!
Cheers,
Nathan
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu <http://www.frozenlight.eu/>
http:// <http://www.greatpix.eu/>www.greatpix.eu
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws <http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws>Blog:
http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/ <http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/>
Cycling: http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/belgiangator
<http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/belgiangator>
YNWA
On 19 Jun 2017, at 02:22, John Hudson <OM4T@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In the present two examples, where is the cut off point between "tighter is better" and
not tight enough from which the conclusion, albeit subjectively, concludes that the less tight
image is an "inferior" image?
jh
On 2017-06-18 8:37 PM, Moose wrote:
On 6/18/2017 11:09 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
I have followed Philippe’s suggestion, and the alternate image is here:
http://www.greatpix.eu/All/Picture-A-Day/i-dBWR9P3/A
Having looked at the two images side by side, I conclude that
Philippe’s suggestion was right on the money.
I agree. A case where tighter is better.
AoV Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|