PhotoArt Appreciation - Page 4

Nice shot ashame that we don't see greater detail, it almost looks familiar . . . where was it taken? Is that a moument of some sort (man made piling) or a natural formation?
One of the negative aspects of viewing objects on the web is they tend not to have high definition.
Of course like prints, there is size factor involved, in digital another is the dpi. Where as for film there is the question of format (the area of the film) & the ASA (grain size).

quote:

---

But on bay photo, the inclusion of the (partial) boat tends to be a detracting factor. It may have worked better if you had shot this in the (horizontal) scenic rather than the protrait (verticle) form.

---

I know this is an old thread, but I actually disagree about cryptictruth's bay photo.

I find it interesting that this photo was one of his first attempts at photography (I think?), and that he was already naturally (perhaps unknowingly) applying some form of Rule of Thirds. Though I think it might have been a stronger image had he included the whole boat, I actually don't see how shooting horizontal might have made it better - just would have been different. Vertically, you are given more view of the sky, and I think the ground and sky are well balanced in terms of proportion.

cturtle, do you develop your own negatives and prints?
& also, with these photo's you've scanned and put up on the thread, were they scanned using a normal printer scanner or a negative scanner?

just a walk in the woods