Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/12/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Let me change that :-) The 4th one, but with a little more bottom added back. May be not as much as the 2nd one, but you need a little more space... On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com>wrote: > The 4th one is the winner to me... > > > On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Howard Ritter <hlritter at bex.net> wrote: > >> Hello All? >> >> I'm planning to enter my first show ever, the annual Healing Arts show >> put on by and for the local medical community in March next year, open to >> entries from the graphic arts. I selected a photo I took at Pictured Rocks >> National Lakeshore of Lake Superior on the UP of Michigan on a short trip >> there last year. The subject is a wave breaking on a multilayered >> sandstone >> shorline. (OK, OK, I can hear your eyes rolling now. What new way is there >> to show a wave breaking on a shore? Well, I think this is one.) Because >> the >> purpose of the trip was not to go to Pictured Rocks or to take >> photographs, >> I wasn't expecting to encounter any subject that would benefit from FF, so >> the only camera I took was my Lumix GF1. Lesson learned (not for the first >> time). The GF1 is a great little camera, but the degree of the crop here >> really would have benefitted from the larger sensor and greater number of >> photosites of a FF camera. >> >> The viewpoint is an observation platform about 300 feet above the water, >> at the top of a nearly vertical cliff, explaining the perspective. I have >> uploaded four photos to the Gallery ( >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/hlritter/Fotos/). One is the full >> frame, taken at 45mm (90 equiv) containing a good deal of foreground >> shrubbery. I started to crop down to clean the worst of this out, but as I >> worked, I realized that the picture works best (for me) as an almost >> abstract composition with the shore, the breaking wave, and the colors of >> the lake bottom forming a nicely proportioned and colorful array. I think >> this is an unusual perspective for this subject, and is the reason why I >> think it's worth showing. The other three are crops. >> >> The first photo is the full frame. The second is the largest crop I could >> get that contained only a small amount of foreground clutter that I could >> PS out (some of which I've already done) and preserved all of the green >> water. The problem with the core crop is that I don't like the near-square >> proportions much?but I like all of the parts of the composition. The other >> two are crops in conventional print proportions, each using one of the >> full >> dimensions of the core crop. The 11x14 is the proportion I find most >> pleasing, but even though it occupies the full horizontal dimension of the >> core crop, it leaves out a lot of the beautiful green waters and some >> shoreline detail. The 8x10 is about as near-square as I find pleasing to >> look at, and includes all the water, but its portrait orientation is at a >> right angle to the flow of the picture elements. But I don't think that's >> a >> deal-killer, and the 8x10 may be better in that it comes closer to >> conforming to the rule of thirds. And I like the off-center location of >> the >> most prominent part of the wave in the 8x10 crop, as well as the inclusion >> of more interesting texture and detail on the shore. Right now I favor the >> 8x10. >> >> I'd appreciate C&C, especially on what might look best framed and on a >> wall?the square core crop, the 8x10, or the 11x14. Or any other cropping >> and proportioning suggestions. >> >> Thanks in advance. Merry Christmas (and Happy Hanukkah) to all, and to >> all a good night! >> >> ?howard >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > > -- > // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com> > > > -- // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>