Again for Interstate 26
Jan 29, 2021 09:54:41 #
Jan 29, 2021 09:57:15 #
Jan 29, 2021 10:04:46 #
PaulBrit wrote:
See if this works?
Hoorah!
Hoorah!
I like it. It addresses your concerns. Thanks so much for taking the time to illustrate a different perspective of the scene for me.
Take Care
Jan 29, 2021 10:30:54 #
PaulBrit
Loc: Merlin, Southern Oregon
stavros wrote:
I like it. It addresses your concerns. Thanks so much for taking the time to illustrate a different perspective of the scene for me.
Take Care
Take Care
Thank you, and this stuff is good for me at my age!
Jan 29, 2021 11:20:49 #
If the tourist/photographer wasn't there your first one would be better, but this version is less ambiguous.
Jan 29, 2021 11:26:12 #
PaulBrit
Loc: Merlin, Southern Oregon
R.G. wrote:
If the tourist/photographer wasn't there your first one would be better, but this version is less ambiguous.
I agree!
Jan 29, 2021 11:51:56 #
R.G. wrote:
If the tourist/photographer wasn't there your first one would be better, but this version is less ambiguous.
That's my wife. I wonder what she would think if I cloned her out
Jan 29, 2021 11:56:42 #
Jan 29, 2021 11:57:21 #
Jan 29, 2021 11:59:13 #
stavros wrote:
That's my wife. I wonder what she would think if I cloned her out
Sometimes not finding out is the better option.....
Jan 29, 2021 12:01:17 #
Hi Paul, I seem to have wandered into a previous conversation for which I have no context ("concerns" "less ambiguous") 🤔
At any rate, I think the person adds scale and interest. She is far enough away to not be obtrusive. The photo is engaging for the details and textures. My only negative is the result of the tree tops against the sky - an edit or replacement that doesn't look quite right IMO.
At any rate, I think the person adds scale and interest. She is far enough away to not be obtrusive. The photo is engaging for the details and textures. My only negative is the result of the tree tops against the sky - an edit or replacement that doesn't look quite right IMO.
Jan 29, 2021 12:13:47 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Hi Paul, I seem to have wandered into a previous conversation for which I have no context ("concerns" "less ambiguous") 🤔
At any rate, I think the person adds scale and interest. She is far enough away to not be obtrusive. The photo is engaging for the details and textures. My only negative is the result of the tree tops against the sky - an edit or replacement that doesn't look quite right IMO.
At any rate, I think the person adds scale and interest. She is far enough away to not be obtrusive. The photo is engaging for the details and textures. My only negative is the result of the tree tops against the sky - an edit or replacement that doesn't look quite right IMO.
Here is my original version that I posted yesterday. I did replace the sky. Linda, you are so good at noticing those fine details that I often overlook. Thanks for the feedback.
Jan 29, 2021 12:15:00 #
stavros wrote:
Ah, no wonder I couldn't find a previous topic under PaulBrit that seemed to apply Here is my original version that I posted yesterday. I did replace the sky. Linda, you are so good at noticing those fine details that I often overlook. Thanks for the feedback.
.
Jan 30, 2021 19:05:59 #
It is an excellent image. I think today's is an improvement over yesterdays, because the sky was not an important part of the picture IMO. The texture of the background trees is quite interesting--it looks fuzzy until a DD is done. Keep the wife--she sets the scale of the structure.
Jan 30, 2021 19:47:10 #
David in Dallas wrote:
It is an excellent image. I think today's is an improvement over yesterdays, because the sky was not an important part of the picture IMO. The texture of the background trees is quite interesting--it looks fuzzy until a DD is done. Keep the wife--she sets the scale of the structure.
Good point. I'll keep the wife. Hopefully, She will keep me too!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.