«

223rem <> wrote:
>Thanks. Not bad at all! As to the reason for taking this shot: I liked
>the contrast between the colorful "rural" foreground and the foggy
>urban background

Try cutting out most of the sky. But the tree is a problem
since it leads the eye.

My guess is that you won't have too much luck. I know. I've
got a fair number like that. Good idea, bad shot.

---- Paul J. Gans

If you had the resolution I would go with the church. Do an extreme crop to
that and toss everything else. Another option would be wide and narrow like
a panorama keep the church and the city skyline. Clone out what is left of
the little pine tree so you don't have the top sticking up in the image.

From there since there isn't a lot of color, I would mask out the church and
then push everything but it to black and white, leave the church color and
up its saturation a bit.

R


"223rem" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> http://i11.tinypic.com/43785ts.jpg
>

Here's my crop. Took some other liberties with the image too.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...006/crop-1.jpg

Apparently 223rem <> wrote:

>http://i11.tinypic.com/43785ts.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/k_j_tough/image/69576891/large

(yeah, I know, I'll get it in the neck for that one. anyway, you could
vignette it "properly").


strangely, the 'matte' colour is picked off the yellow house.

--
Ken Tough

Pat wrote:
> Annika1980 wrote:
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/69565598
>
> I think I'm with you on this one. When I looked at it, that's about
> what I thought. I think that little pine in the middle has to go to
> make it much more interesting.
>

Y'odda get the main buildings vertical, like.

--
john mcwilliams

On 1 Nov 2006 15:44:36 -0800, "223rem" <> wrote:

> http://i11.tinypic.com/43785ts.jpg

Go back with a chainsaw, remove the blue spruce trees then try again with less grass.

Frank ess wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>> 223rem wrote:
>>> http://i11.tinypic.com/43785ts.jpg
>>>
>> Open the file, Select All | Edit Clear would be the place to start
>> with that one.
>
> That's a little more extreme than this, which will get you an
> 8x10-proportioned print of dubious quality:
> http://www.fototime.com/F569F2CA79B83C2/orig.jpg

Nice one!

David

Paul J Gans wrote:
> 223rem <> wrote:
>> Thanks. Not bad at all! As to the reason for taking this shot: I liked
>> the contrast between the colorful "rural" foreground and the foggy
>> urban background
>
> Try cutting out most of the sky. But the tree is a problem
> since it leads the eye.
>
> My guess is that you won't have too much luck. I know. I've
> got a fair number like that. Good idea, bad shot.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
>


Maybe we could get that war photog from Reuters to pop over and
photoshop that pesky tree problem?

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

I like that ... kk

"Crispy Critter" <> wrote in message
news:9xmg3o8zkl0j$....
> Here's my crop. Took some other liberties with the image too.
>
> http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...006/crop-1.jpg

"Annika1980" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/69565598
>

I think this is preferable to cropping-in close. The problem with the
previous cropped versions is that only the tip of the small pine tree is
left, and it is distracting -- the eye immediately focuses on that little
tree-top in the foreground. So, I would vote for pulling back to include
most of the tree unless he is going to use Photoshop to eliminate the tree
altogether.

MaryL