|
melekzek
Oct 6, 2003, 6:59 PM
Post #2 of 12
(1996 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
it took me some searching until I find the siluette. Which shows that the composition is a little hard to read. It is a wide shot, but if you use the standard ratio you have lots of stuff in the frame. I would crop almost half of the lower half, there is nothing interesting down there. A tighter framing makes it easier to connect the elements in the picture, the siluette, the earth, and the mountain. I might also crop from the right a little, placing him close to the right side of the frame. If only he was facing to the mountain, that would be perfect, but this one will work too. But be aware, if you crop too much from the right, he doesnt have anywhere to go.
edited: usual reason, me suk spelling
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Oct 7, 2003, 3:54 AM
Post #3 of 12
(1996 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
I think the person is too distant. If he were closer it may be better.
On the other hand, if you kill the bottom part and make the image short and wide, it does look very cool, even without making the guy bigger. I like it that way.
|
|
|
|
|
padwarmer
Oct 7, 2003, 7:45 PM
Post #5 of 12
(1996 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2003
Posts: 27
|
I agree with the comments above. I would remove about 1/4 of the original frame from the bottom. Then crop the right side to the peak of the hill in the foreground. I think your second post is cropped to tight. The hiker is a part of the image but is too small and indistinct to become the focus. To me it is a picture of the mountains that happens to include a hiker. I like this picture a lot. The only distraction for me is the bright boulders in the bottom of the frame.
|
|
|
|
|
jut
Oct 10, 2003, 9:59 PM
Post #6 of 12
(1996 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2003
Posts: 59
|
I'm amazed at the difference the crop makes. The second photo is much more pleasing to my eye.
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Oct 17, 2003, 8:36 PM
Post #7 of 12
(1996 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
I would have to agree the crop is much more synamic. Very nicely done!
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Oct 17, 2003, 10:26 PM
Post #9 of 12
(1996 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: What the heck is a synamic.
dynamic with a wrong spelling maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Oct 18, 2003, 10:10 PM
Post #10 of 12
(1996 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
In reply to: In reply to: What the heck is a synamic. dynamic with a wrong spelling maybe?
I was just making sure it wasn`t some esoteric arty photog term.
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Oct 19, 2003, 3:45 PM
Post #11 of 12
(1996 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: What the heck is a synamic. dynamic with a wrong spelling maybe? I was just making sure it wasn`t some esoteric arty photog term.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
yep, my awful typing sometimes gets the best of me.
Synamic eh? That'll be my new word ;)
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Oct 19, 2003, 8:18 PM
Post #12 of 12
(1996 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Dynamic Synergy = synamic. I think we have the start of a definition for this new word here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
