Re: "Blue Guy" revisited

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert Coe, Aug 19, 2012.

  1. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:55:30 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    :
    : OK!
    : Tony shared his blue tinted guy and I thought it was better suited to a
    : B&W treatment.
    : So here is the Cooper "Blue" rendition compared with three versions
    : created with Silver Efex Pro 2, from Tony's original dng.
    : https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/_Pct51vnum/Shared Images/Cooper-Test

    It's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, since your treatment involves
    changes beyond simply getting rid of the blue tint. I definitely prefer your
    cropping, but, like Peter, I also sort of like the blue tint. I think I'd take
    your No. 4, tinted blue.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 19, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:51:02 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:55:30 -0700, Savageduck
    ><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >:
    >: OK!
    >: Tony shared his blue tinted guy and I thought it was better suited to a
    >: B&W treatment.
    >: So here is the Cooper "Blue" rendition compared with three versions
    >: created with Silver Efex Pro 2, from Tony's original dng.
    >: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/_Pct51vnum/Shared Images/Cooper-Test
    >
    >It's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, since your treatment involves
    >changes beyond simply getting rid of the blue tint. I definitely prefer your
    >cropping, but, like Peter, I also sort of like the blue tint. I think I'd take
    >your No. 4, tinted blue.
    >

    Hmmm. The crop hasn't come up before. I sent the Duck the RAW image
    from the camera with no edits at all. He didn't crop. My "blue"
    version is cropped.

    So you feel the wider view adds to the image?


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 19, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:52:09 -0400, tony cooper <>
    wrote:
    : On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:51:02 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : >On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:55:30 -0700, Savageduck
    : ><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    : >:
    : >: OK!
    : >: Tony shared his blue tinted guy and I thought it was better suited to a
    : >: B&W treatment.
    : >: So here is the Cooper "Blue" rendition compared with three versions
    : >: created with Silver Efex Pro 2, from Tony's original dng.
    : >: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/_Pct51vnum/Shared Images/Cooper-Test
    : >
    : >It's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, since your treatment involves
    : >changes beyond simply getting rid of the blue tint. I definitely prefer your
    : >cropping, but, like Peter, I also sort of like the blue tint. I think I'd take
    : >your No. 4, tinted blue.
    : >
    : Hmmm. The crop hasn't come up before. I sent the Duck the RAW image
    : from the camera with no edits at all. He didn't crop. My "blue"
    : version is cropped.
    :
    : So you feel the wider view adds to the image?

    Yes. The cropped version illustrates (by violating) the "rule" that the
    subject of a portrait should usually be looking into, not out of, the picture.

    Look at a current American $10 note. The first thing you notice is that Al
    Hamilton should be facing in the other direction.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 19, 2012
    #3
  4. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:03:00 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    : On 2012-08-19 04:51:02 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    :
    : > On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:55:30 -0700, Savageduck
    : > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    : > :
    : > : OK!
    : > : Tony shared his blue tinted guy and I thought it was better suited to a
    : > : B&W treatment.
    : > : So here is the Cooper "Blue" rendition compared with three versions
    : > : created with Silver Efex Pro 2, from Tony's original dng.
    : > :
    : > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/_Pct51vnum/Shared Images/Cooper-Test
    :
    : It's
    : >
    : > a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, since your treatment involves
    : > changes beyond simply getting rid of the blue tint. I definitely prefer your
    : > cropping, but, like Peter, I also sort of like the blue tint. I think I'd take
    : > your No. 4, tinted blue.
    : >
    : > Bob
    :
    : Since the consensus seems to favor a "blue" treatment, I tried
    : something a little more subtle, and because we are so far off the
    : "street" path regarding PP, two different selective "blue" versions.
    : Again with the original "Cooper Blue":
    : <
    : https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/Gnbbary9Pd/Shared Images/Cooper-Test-2

    I still prefer the Cooper blue. The first of yours is too purple, and in your
    others the face is too dark. By the last one, we're left to wonder why the
    head is blue at all, since the blue is no longer a shading of the entire
    picture.

    My bottom line is that Tony exercised his artistic judgement pretty well,
    except for what I consider an infelicitous (but easily corrected) crop.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 19, 2012
    #4
  5. Robert Coe

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/19/2012 10:03 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-08-19 04:51:02 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    >
    >> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:55:30 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >> :
    >> : OK!
    >> : Tony shared his blue tinted guy and I thought it was better suited to a
    >> : B&W treatment.
    >> : So here is the Cooper "Blue" rendition compared with three versions
    >> : created with Silver Efex Pro 2, from Tony's original dng.
    >> :
    >> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/_Pct51vnum/Shared Images/Cooper-Test
    >>

    >
    > It's
    >>
    >> a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, since your treatment involves
    >> changes beyond simply getting rid of the blue tint. I definitely
    >> prefer your
    >> cropping, but, like Peter, I also sort of like the blue tint. I think
    >> I'd take
    >> your No. 4, tinted blue.
    >>
    >> Bob

    >
    > Since the consensus seems to favor a "blue" treatment, I tried something
    > a little more subtle, and because we are so far off the "street" path
    > regarding PP, two different selective "blue" versions.
    > Again with the original "Cooper Blue":
    > <
    > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/Gnbbary9Pd/Shared Images/Cooper-Test-2


    #2 does it for me. It shows the world around the subject as blue and the
    subject is part of that world. I had to to a mental crop on #1. Also,
    you got rid of the objectionable highlights that Tony Cooper left in.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Aug 19, 2012
    #5
  6. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:03:00 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-08-19 04:51:02 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    >
    >> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:55:30 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >> :
    >> : OK!
    >> : Tony shared his blue tinted guy and I thought it was better suited to a
    >> : B&W treatment.
    >> : So here is the Cooper "Blue" rendition compared with three versions
    >> : created with Silver Efex Pro 2, from Tony's original dng.
    >> :
    >> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/_Pct51vnum/Shared Images/Cooper-Test

    >
    >It's
    >>
    >> a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, since your treatment involves
    >> changes beyond simply getting rid of the blue tint. I definitely prefer your
    >> cropping, but, like Peter, I also sort of like the blue tint. I think I'd take
    >> your No. 4, tinted blue.
    >>
    >> Bob

    >
    >Since the consensus seems to favor a "blue" treatment, I tried
    >something a little more subtle, and because we are so far off the
    >"street" path regarding PP, two different selective "blue" versions.
    >Again with the original "Cooper Blue":
    ><
    >https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/Gnbbary9Pd/Shared Images/Cooper-Test-2
    >>


    A bit difficult commenting on revisions to my own interpretation
    because, of course, I'm biased to favor my own processing.

    Duck's #2 - Too dark for me, and loses that statue/wax figure look
    that I saw.

    Duck's #3 - Too much variation in darks and lights. It makes my eyes
    jump.

    Duck's #4 - Again, it loses that statue/wax figure look that I saw.

    I feel my "blue" version emphasizes the face and the statue/wax figure
    look and makes the background truly a background. I see the point,
    though, about the area on the right being too bright. That's the side
    the sun was coming from, but it should have been toned down. As long
    as significant changes are made in post, anything goes and that area
    should have been toned down to get the image more in balance. I do
    stand by my crop, though. The extra area doesn't add much as a
    "leading area".

    Now, to "Test 2":
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/Gnbbary9Pd/Shared Images/Cooper-Test-2

    Duck's #2 - Too blue. With everything blue, the man no longer stands
    out.

    Duck's #2 - Horrible. An affront to the eye.

    Duck's #3 - Far too gimmicky. A blue head? Cyanotic? It may sound
    hypocritical for the person who rendered an image blue to say that
    another rendering is "gimmicky", but even "gimmicky" has a line not to
    be crossed.

    Duck made a comment in another post that there's something
    "disturbing" about my image. That's good! That's what I saw, and
    that's what I feel I emphasized in the processing. This wasn't
    intended as photo-realism; it was intended as photo-surrealism.

    I didn't show any bias in these comments, did I? <sarcasm intended

    PS: Anyone who wants to take a shot at revising any image of mine as
    Duck did is more than welcome to do so. I think it was a fun
    exercise.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 19, 2012
    #6
  7. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:02:39 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:
    : On 2012-08-19 10:26 , Robert Coe wrote:
    :
    : > Yes. The cropped version illustrates (by violating) the "rule" that the
    : > subject of a portrait should usually be looking into, not out of, the picture.
    : >
    : > Look at a current American $10 note. The first thing you notice is that Al
    : > Hamilton should be facing in the other direction.
    :
    : The portrait is not over the whole bill, it is a self standing vignette
    : in the middle of it. He doesn't have to be facing in any particular
    : direction. Indeed all dead presidents (and Franklin) should perhaps be
    : facing left.

    Alan, I know you recently spent some time in the U.S., but I guess you didn't
    see a $10 bill. (Yeah, I know, U.S. money machines give out only 20's.) If you
    had, you'd probably have noticed that the picture isn't in the middle.
    Actually, it isn't in the middle of any of the commonly circulated bills
    except the $1. It's displaced to the left, and it looks funny when the person
    shown is looking in that direction.

    : Why? There is a notion (in western art) that left looking (from the
    : viewer's perspective) indicates an introspective or reflective mood and
    : right looking means looking to future. So dead people should perhaps be
    : looking to the left from our POV.

    Yeah, yeah, "sinister" is the Latin word for "left", etc., etc. But all the
    related mythology was discredited ages ago.

    : In the end a portrait should be shown to make the client look good, the
    : scoundrel look scandalous and the villain look evil. And so on.

    So Republicans should be shown looking to the left? That won't fly, as they're
    currently of the ultra-right wing of American politics.

    : The challenge, when the subject is near the edge and looking to that
    : edge is that the viewer imagine what is there. That's tough. But
    : there's no "rule" unless the viewers are assumed to consume Pablum.
    : That's easy.

    Well, yes, there is a "rule". It's OK to break it if you know what you're
    doing, but that doesn't make it go away. And most pictures do look better if
    the subject is looking in, not out.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 19, 2012
    #7
  8. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:17:59 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    : On 2012-08-19 08:02:39 -0700, Alan Browne
    : <> said:
    :
    : > On 2012-08-19 10:26 , Robert Coe wrote:
    : >
    : >> Yes. The cropped version illustrates (by violating) the "rule" that
    : >> the subject of a portrait should usually be looking into, not out of,
    : >> the picture.
    : >> Look at a current American $10 note. The first thing you notice is that
    : >> Al Hamilton should be facing in the other direction.
    : >
    : > The portrait is not over the whole bill, it is a self standing vignette
    : > in the middle of it. He doesn't have to be facing in any particular
    : > direction. Indeed all dead presidents (and Franklin) should perhaps be
    : > facing left.
    :
    : Note that Hamilton got plugged by Burr before any thought of a run for
    : the presidency could germinate in his Federalist mind. So there are two
    : non-presidents on US bank notes.

    Three.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 19, 2012
    #8
  9. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 13:09:36 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-08-19 09:52:11 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:03:00 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-08-19 04:51:02 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:55:30 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>> :
    >>>> : OK!
    >>>> : Tony shared his blue tinted guy and I thought it was better suited to a
    >>>> : B&W treatment.
    >>>> : So here is the Cooper "Blue" rendition compared with three versions
    >>>> : created with Silver Efex Pro 2, from Tony's original dng.
    >>>> :
    >>>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/_Pct51vnum/Shared Images/Cooper-Test

    >
    >It's
    >
    >a
    >>>>
    >>>> bit of an apples and oranges comparison, since your treatment involves
    >>>> changes beyond simply getting rid of the blue tint. I definitely prefer your
    >>>> cropping, but, like Peter, I also sort of like the blue tint. I think I'd take
    >>>> your No. 4, tinted blue.
    >>>>
    >>>> Bob
    >>>
    >>> Since the consensus seems to favor a "blue" treatment, I tried
    >>> something a little more subtle, and because we are so far off the
    >>> "street" path regarding PP, two different selective "blue" versions.
    >>> Again with the original "Cooper Blue":
    >>> <
    >>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/Gnbbary9Pd/Shared Images/Cooper-Test-2

    >
    >
    >A
    >>>

    >> bit difficult commenting on revisions to my own interpretation
    >> because, of course, I'm biased to favor my own processing.
    >>
    >> Duck's #2 - Too dark for me, and loses that statue/wax figure look
    >> that I saw.
    >>
    >> Duck's #3 - Too much variation in darks and lights. It makes my eyes
    >> jump.
    >>
    >> Duck's #4 - Again, it loses that statue/wax figure look that I saw.
    >>
    >> I feel my "blue" version emphasizes the face and the statue/wax figure
    >> look and makes the background truly a background. I see the point,
    >> though, about the area on the right being too bright. That's the side
    >> the sun was coming from, but it should have been toned down. As long
    >> as significant changes are made in post, anything goes and that area
    >> should have been toned down to get the image more in balance. I do
    >> stand by my crop, though. The extra area doesn't add much as a
    >> "leading area".
    >>
    >> Now, to "Test 2":
    >> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/Gnbbary9Pd/Shared Images/Cooper-Test-2

    >
    >Duck's
    >>
    >> #2 - Too blue. With everything blue, the man no longer stands
    >> out.
    >>
    >> Duck's #2 - Horrible. An affront to the eye.
    >>
    >> Duck's #3 - Far too gimmicky. A blue head? Cyanotic? It may sound
    >> hypocritical for the person who rendered an image blue to say that
    >> another rendering is "gimmicky", but even "gimmicky" has a line not to
    >> be crossed.
    >>
    >> Duck made a comment in another post that there's something
    >> "disturbing" about my image. That's good! That's what I saw, and
    >> that's what I feel I emphasized in the processing. This wasn't
    >> intended as photo-realism; it was intended as photo-surrealism.
    >>
    >> I didn't show any bias in these comments, did I? <sarcasm intended
    >>
    >> PS: Anyone who wants to take a shot at revising any image of mine as
    >> Duck did is more than welcome to do so. I think it was a fun
    >> exercise.

    >
    >The artist has spoken. ;-)


    Would that van Rijn guy want "Son of Titus" to have a blue head?

    Would Pete Rubens want "The Adoration of the Maji" done in selective
    color?

    Would Vinny Von G want "The Yellow House" done in spotty black and
    white?



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 19, 2012
    #9
  10. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 13:46:35 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:
    : On 2012-08-19 13:14 , Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:02:39 -0400, Alan Browne
    : > <> wrote:
    : > : The challenge, when the subject is near the edge and looking to that
    : > : edge is that the viewer imagine what is there. That's tough. But
    : > : there's no "rule" unless the viewers are assumed to consume Pablum.
    : > : That's easy.
    : >
    : > Well, yes, there is a "rule".

    And I did say that it's OK to ignore it at times.

    : No there isn't. Drop rules. They're killing you.

    Then can I also drop the "Rule of Thirds"? That's the one I've always thought
    to be the silliest. :^)

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 19, 2012
    #10
  11. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:52:11 -0400, tony cooper <>
    wrote:
    : I feel my "blue" version emphasizes the face and the statue/wax figure
    : look and makes the background truly a background. I see the point,
    : though, about the area on the right being too bright. That's the side
    : the sun was coming from, but it should have been toned down. As long
    : as significant changes are made in post, anything goes and that area
    : should have been toned down to get the image more in balance. I do
    : stand by my crop, though. The extra area doesn't add much as a
    : "leading area".

    Looking at it longer, I've concluded that the two croppings represent two
    distinct interpretations of the presentation. Your cropping makes it appear
    that the subject was interrupted and has turned in the direction of the
    interruption, while the Duck's version does not. The effect is intensified by
    the blending of the jacket and the turtleneck sweater in your version and the
    more severe cropping on the right in the Duck's.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 19, 2012
    #11
  12. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:41:01 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:52:11 -0400, tony cooper <>
    >wrote:
    >: I feel my "blue" version emphasizes the face and the statue/wax figure
    >: look and makes the background truly a background. I see the point,
    >: though, about the area on the right being too bright. That's the side
    >: the sun was coming from, but it should have been toned down. As long
    >: as significant changes are made in post, anything goes and that area
    >: should have been toned down to get the image more in balance. I do
    >: stand by my crop, though. The extra area doesn't add much as a
    >: "leading area".
    >
    >Looking at it longer, I've concluded that the two croppings represent two
    >distinct interpretations of the presentation. Your cropping makes it appear
    >that the subject was interrupted and has turned in the direction of the
    >interruption, while the Duck's version does not. The effect is intensified by
    >the blending of the jacket and the turtleneck sweater in your version and the
    >more severe cropping on the right in the Duck's.
    >

    The Duck didn't crop at all. He kept the entire o-o-c image intact.

    I cropped to take out the darker objects in the top left corner. I
    did darken the tee shirt because I didn't want a distracting bit of
    lightness at the bottom.

    As far as being interrupted, the subject is either asleep or dead.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 19, 2012
    #12
  13. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:52:09 -0400, tony cooper <>
    wrote:
    : On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:41:01 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : >On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:52:11 -0400, tony cooper <>
    : >wrote:
    : >: I feel my "blue" version emphasizes the face and the statue/wax figure
    : >: look and makes the background truly a background. I see the point,
    : >: though, about the area on the right being too bright. That's the side
    : >: the sun was coming from, but it should have been toned down. As long
    : >: as significant changes are made in post, anything goes and that area
    : >: should have been toned down to get the image more in balance. I do
    : >: stand by my crop, though. The extra area doesn't add much as a
    : >: "leading area".
    : >
    : >Looking at it longer, I've concluded that the two croppings represent two
    : >distinct interpretations of the presentation. Your cropping makes it appear
    : >that the subject was interrupted and has turned in the direction of the
    : >interruption, while the Duck's version does not. The effect is intensified by
    : >the blending of the jacket and the turtleneck sweater in your version and the
    : >more severe cropping on the right in the Duck's.
    : >
    : The Duck didn't crop at all. He kept the entire o-o-c image intact.

    If the Duck didn't do any cropping, how come the subject's head is so much
    closer to the right-hand edge of the picture in his version than in yours? And
    how does his version manage to keep pretty much the same aspect ratio as
    yours?

    : I cropped to take out the darker objects in the top left corner. I
    : did darken the tee shirt because I didn't want a distracting bit of
    : lightness at the bottom.
    :
    : As far as being interrupted, the subject is either asleep or dead.

    Yeah, I guess. Until I looked more closely, I thought the light glaring off of
    the subject's eyelids were his eyes. I.e., that he had his eyes open.

    Well, then I don't see any reason for cropping on the left. But of course I'm
    not the one who has to be pleased.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 20, 2012
    #13
  14. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:20:12 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:52:09 -0400, tony cooper <>
    >wrote:
    >: On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:41:01 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >:
    >: >On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:52:11 -0400, tony cooper <>
    >: >wrote:
    >: >: I feel my "blue" version emphasizes the face and the statue/wax figure
    >: >: look and makes the background truly a background. I see the point,
    >: >: though, about the area on the right being too bright. That's the side
    >: >: the sun was coming from, but it should have been toned down. As long
    >: >: as significant changes are made in post, anything goes and that area
    >: >: should have been toned down to get the image more in balance. I do
    >: >: stand by my crop, though. The extra area doesn't add much as a
    >: >: "leading area".
    >: >
    >: >Looking at it longer, I've concluded that the two croppings represent two
    >: >distinct interpretations of the presentation. Your cropping makes it appear
    >: >that the subject was interrupted and has turned in the direction of the
    >: >interruption, while the Duck's version does not. The effect is intensified by
    >: >the blending of the jacket and the turtleneck sweater in your version and the
    >: >more severe cropping on the right in the Duck's.
    >: >
    >: The Duck didn't crop at all. He kept the entire o-o-c image intact.
    >
    >If the Duck didn't do any cropping, how come the subject's head is so much
    >closer to the right-hand edge of the picture in his version than in yours? And
    >how does his version manage to keep pretty much the same aspect ratio as
    >yours?


    I think I know what the problem is. You are looking at the images in
    this link:

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/_Pct51vnum/Shared Images/Cooper-Test

    without clicking an image to open the image. If you click on an
    image, it will expand to full-screen and allow you to arrow to the
    next and the next and the next.

    What you see in the filmstrip, or whatever you call it, is not the
    full image. It looks like the Duck has cropped off the right.

    If you look at the full-screen image, you will see that the Duck has
    not cropped the image at all, but that I have cropped the image just
    the left of the first stack of picture frames. Duck's images have a
    second stack of picture frames on the left.

    My reason for cropping is below:

    >: I cropped to take out the darker objects in the top left corner. I
    >: did darken the tee shirt because I didn't want a distracting bit of
    >: lightness at the bottom.
    >:
    >: As far as being interrupted, the subject is either asleep or dead.
    >
    >Yeah, I guess. Until I looked more closely, I thought the light glaring off of
    >the subject's eyelids were his eyes. I.e., that he had his eyes open.
    >
    >Well, then I don't see any reason for cropping on the left. But of course I'm
    >not the one who has to be pleased.


    I think full-screen viewing will satisfy your question as to why I
    cropped.

    This is the first time, I think, that anyone has used the DropBox
    album format in this forum. I suggested this to Duck because it's
    easier to compare images when you can go back and forth as opposed to
    opening four separate links. It's a good way to display several
    images...IF you click to open the images to the full size.

    If you use DropBox, you put the images in an album and link to the
    album instead of to the individual images.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 20, 2012
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    NVIDIA Forceware Revisited article

    Silverstrand, Sep 22, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    618
    Silverstrand
    Sep 22, 2005
  2. Caploc

    Mnenhy revisited

    Caploc, Dec 15, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    587
    Leonidas Jones
    Dec 16, 2004
  3. Brad Tarver
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,040
    Brad Tarver
    Jul 9, 2003
  4. Brad Tarver
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,129
    Brad Tarver
    Jul 9, 2003
  5. PeterN

    Re: "Blue Guy" revisited

    PeterN, Aug 19, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    238
    PeterN
    Aug 19, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page