Opinions Wanted

On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:17:47 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

I know that computer monitors are not ideal for viewing and proofing
prints of this kind but I am interested in gathering the opinions of
anyone in this newsgroup who is bold enough to state one. You can find
a JPG of each version in:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...M2OQuylz7CgFza

In looking through the three images, one thing I noticed is that #3 was the
"least" crop of the three. I don't know if its the full frame original or not.

In any case, I didn't really care too much for #1 or #2 ...

#1 seems to emphasis the foreground, rather than the bay.

#2 is bringing the eye into the hills/cliffs beyond the bay, which hints at your intent

#3 has even more foreground, which seems even more distracting.

What I'd suggest is ... more/different crops. Might help too with the family, as
no one gets "their way" from the first round.

Here's a direction that I'd suggest considering - - this is quick & dirty; I might
want to have kept a bit more sky to the top:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l4ib67605r...cker3-crop.jpg


" NOTHING HERE
The file your'e looking for has been deleted or moved."


In any case, I hope it inspires some expression. My thought process was that
with the piece's title being "Bay", the context of the open water on the left is
a necessary element. Similarly, I believe that you have more interest in the
hills/cliffs than in the grasses, so this was adjusted accordingly (max/min).

Hope this helps,

-hh
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 5/21/2014 4:45 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 12:21:33 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

I would never cover an art image with glass, unless it was a reproduction.

It depends on how long you want to keep it. The right glass helps
protect against fly droppings, ultraviolet light etc. Prints the size
I've been making tend not to be throw-away items.


We have an original impressionist painting by a well known artist, that
we would never consider putting under glass. However we have a charcoal
by our daughter, that is kept under glass. The only reason for the glass
is that charcoal smears.

--
PeterN

On 5/21/2014 4:49 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:17:47 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

I know that computer monitors are not ideal for viewing and proofing
prints of this kind but I am interested in gathering the opinions of
anyone in this newsgroup who is bold enough to state one. You can find
a JPG of each version in:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...M2OQuylz7CgFza

In looking through the three images, one thing I noticed is that #3 was the
"least" crop of the three. I don't know if its the full frame original or not.

In any case, I didn't really care too much for #1 or #2 ...

#1 seems to emphasis the foreground, rather than the bay.

#2 is bringing the eye into the hills/cliffs beyond the bay, which hints at your intent

#3 has even more foreground, which seems even more distracting.

What I'd suggest is ... more/different crops. Might help too with the family, as
no one gets "their way" from the first round.

Here's a direction that I'd suggest considering - - this is quick & dirty; I might
want to have kept a bit more sky to the top:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l4ib67605r...cker3-crop.jpg


" NOTHING HERE
The file your'e looking for has been deleted or moved."


In any case, I hope it inspires some expression. My thought process was that
with the piece's title being "Bay", the context of the open water on the left is
a necessary element. Similarly, I believe that you have more interest in the
hills/cliffs than in the grasses, so this was adjusted accordingly (max/min).

Hope this helps,

I liked the apparent clarity of the foreground in #2 but that might not
be desired.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

On 5/20/14 10:46 PM, in article ,
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

Some years ago I used my trusty D70 to take a photograph of a west
coast bay in rough conditions. Recently I've been trying to arrive at
a composition suitable for printing on matte paper in A2 size and
suitable for framing and hanging on a wall.

My present problem is that every member of my family has a different
idea of the best composition and in an attempt to bring peace I have
made three different versions. That hasn't really helped as I now have
three different sets of strong opinions.

I know that computer monitors are not ideal for viewing and proofing
prints of this kind but I am interested in gathering the opinions of
anyone in this newsgroup who is bold enough to state one. You can find
a JPG of each version in:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...M2OQuylz7CgFza

#2 - The diagonal from the top of the hill on the right continues with the
foreground foliage to the bottom left and it follows the "rule of thirds" to
almost perfection.

But like a-holes are opinions - everyone has one...

;-)

On 5/21/14 11:18 AM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 5/20/2014 11:46 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Some years ago I used my trusty D70 to take a photograph of a west
coast bay in rough conditions. Recently I've been trying to arrive at
a composition suitable for printing on matte paper in A2 size and
suitable for framing and hanging on a wall.

My present problem is that every member of my family has a different
idea of the best composition and in an attempt to bring peace I have
made three different versions. That hasn't really helped as I now have
three different sets of strong opinions.

I know that computer monitors are not ideal for viewing and proofing
prints of this kind but I am interested in gathering the opinions of
anyone in this newsgroup who is bold enough to state one. You can find
a JPG of each version in:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...M2OQuylz7CgFza


Here's our chance to stand up for yourself. Pick the one that you like
best, and take a strong stand. If you wife likes a different version,
concede. She will owe you one. It's a great chance to get yourself a new
lens.


LOL! I like your reasoning!!!

On Wed, 21 May 2014 17:25:11 -0400, James Silverton
wrote:

On 5/21/2014 4:49 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:17:47 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

I know that computer monitors are not ideal for viewing and proofing
prints of this kind but I am interested in gathering the opinions of
anyone in this newsgroup who is bold enough to state one. You can find
a JPG of each version in:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...M2OQuylz7CgFza

In looking through the three images, one thing I noticed is that #3 was the
"least" crop of the three. I don't know if its the full frame original or not.

In any case, I didn't really care too much for #1 or #2 ...

#1 seems to emphasis the foreground, rather than the bay.

#2 is bringing the eye into the hills/cliffs beyond the bay, which hints at your intent

#3 has even more foreground, which seems even more distracting.

What I'd suggest is ... more/different crops. Might help too with the family, as
no one gets "their way" from the first round.

Here's a direction that I'd suggest considering - - this is quick & dirty; I might
want to have kept a bit more sky to the top:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l4ib67605r...cker3-crop.jpg


" NOTHING HERE
The file your'e looking for has been deleted or moved."


In any case, I hope it inspires some expression. My thought process was that
with the piece's title being "Bay", the context of the open water on the left is
a necessary element. Similarly, I believe that you have more interest in the
hills/cliffs than in the grasses, so this was adjusted accordingly (max/min).

Hope this helps,

I liked the apparent clarity of the foreground in #2 but that might not
be desired.

In those days (when I took the picture) I always tried to have
something in the foreground to give a scale against which the depth of
view could be measured. I also tried to have it sharp in the print. In
this case it was particularly difficult as the D70 is only 6.1 Mp, the
image is a crop and the print is approximately 56cm (22") wide. I more
or less obtained the desired sharpness by using multiple runs of 5, 4,
3, 2, 1 pixels and this was retained in the reduced size print of the
JPG I sent to Dropbox. Unfortunately Dropbox has introduced some
fuzziness. You can see the original at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ecker%202a.jpg

I think today I would try to fight my way through the shrubbery so as
to get it out of the picture. And yet I don't know. It's damned tough
going. :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:17:47 -0700 (PDT), -hh

wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:



I know that computer monitors are not ideal for viewing and proofing

prints of this kind but I am interested in gathering the opinions of

anyone in this newsgroup who is bold enough to state one. You can find

a JPG of each version in:



https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...M2OQuylz7CgFza



In looking through the three images, one thing I noticed is that #3 was the

"least" crop of the three. I don't know if its the full frame original or not.



In any case, I didn't really care too much for #1 or #2 ...



#1 seems to emphasis the foreground, rather than the bay.



#2 is bringing the eye into the hills/cliffs beyond the bay, which hints at your intent



#3 has even more foreground, which seems even more distracting.



What I'd suggest is ... more/different crops. Might help too with the family, as

no one gets "their way" from the first round.



Here's a direction that I'd suggest considering - - this is quick & dirty; I might

want to have kept a bit more sky to the top:



https://www.dropbox.com/s/l4ib67605r...cker3-crop.jpg





" NOTHING HERE

The file your'e looking for has been deleted or moved."

Yeah, having some pains figuring out how to make dropbox share openly....

Let's try this one:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/yitcoaec5...Z_bsLWCYutSh_a




In any case, I hope it inspires some expression. My thought process was that

with the piece's title being "Bay", the context of the open water on the left is

a necessary element. Similarly, I believe that you have more interest in the

hills/cliffs than in the grasses, so this was adjusted accordingly (max/min).



Hope this helps,



-hh

--



Regards,



Eric Stevens

On Wed, 21 May 2014 15:46:16 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: Some years ago I used my trusty D70 to take a photograph of a west
: coast bay in rough conditions. Recently I've been trying to arrive at
: a composition suitable for printing on matte paper in A2 size and
: suitable for framing and hanging on a wall.
:
: My present problem is that every member of my family has a different
: idea of the best composition and in an attempt to bring peace I have
: made three different versions. That hasn't really helped as I now have
: three different sets of strong opinions.
:
: I know that computer monitors are not ideal for viewing and proofing
: prints of this kind but I am interested in gathering the opinions of
: anyone in this newsgroup who is bold enough to state one. You can find
: a JPG of each version in:
:
: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...M2OQuylz7CgFza

No. 2, cropped to an 8:5 aspect ratio by trimming the top. Both 1 (especially)
and 3 show too much of the featureless ocean and sky. The center of interest
is correctly placed on the rock outcroppings along the shore.

Bob

On Wed, 21 May 2014 00:48:05 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:
: On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:33:57 +1200, Eric Stevens
: wrote:
:
: On Wed, 21 May 2014 00:14:14 -0400, Tony Cooper
: wrote:
:
: On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:11:02 +1200, Eric Stevens
: wrote:
:
: On Wed, 21 May 2014 00:01:20 -0400, Tony Cooper
: wrote:
:
: On Wed, 21 May 2014 15:46:16 +1200, Eric Stevens
: wrote:
:
: Some years ago I used my trusty D70 to take a photograph of a west
: coast bay in rough conditions. Recently I've been trying to arrive at
: a composition suitable for printing on matte paper in A2 size and
: suitable for framing and hanging on a wall.
:
: My present problem is that every member of my family has a different
: idea of the best composition and in an attempt to bring peace I have
: made three different versions. That hasn't really helped as I now have
: three different sets of strong opinions.
:
: I know that computer monitors are not ideal for viewing and proofing
: prints of this kind but I am interested in gathering the opinions of
: anyone in this newsgroup who is bold enough to state one. You can find
: a JPG of each version in:
:
: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...M2OQuylz7CgFza
:
: I'd go with #2, but it's your photo.
:
: Why not three framed versions, each in a different room?
:
: Open plan house. Effectively only the one suitable room. :-)
:
: The cost is in the frame and the matting, not the print. Print all
: three and change what's in the frame once a month.
:
: The glass is the most expensive item.
:
: I don't think photographs always need glass. In fact, sometimes it
: takes away.
:
: With or without glass, the framing and matting is more expensive than
: the print. Prints can be switched.

Museum-quality, non-reflective glass never takes away, because its
imperceptible. But it's expensive, so use it only on pictures you really like
(or want someone else to really like).

Bob

On Wed, 21 May 2014 18:03:42 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

Yeah, having some pains figuring out how to make dropbox share openly....

Let's try this one:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/yitcoaec5...Z_bsLWCYutSh_a




In any case, I hope it inspires some expression. My thought process was that

with the piece's title being "Bay", the context of the open water on the left is

a necessary element. Similarly, I believe that you have more interest in the

hills/cliffs than in the grasses, so this was adjusted accordingly (max/min).


That's good, but I have some constraints on proportions that I haven't
previously mentioned. It has to match an existing print.

However, it could well be used to match
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ion%20Rock.jpg
..... if I want matched prints of those proportions.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens