Rattlesnake Ridge

Printable View

  • 02-12-2004, 07:37 PM
    cfarrell
    1 Attachment(s)
    Rattlesnake Ridge
    Taken with a Canon S45 in B & W mode. 1/200 at f4.5. Adjusted levels, upped the contrast and burned the clouds a little for definition. What do you think?
  • 02-13-2004, 09:11 AM
    GB1
    I think its a nice shot alright. Composition is excellant, though I can't help but wonder if it could have been even better with a wider angle lens (but I always think that). The thing that strikes me the most is the mystery of the shot -- this is what makes a picture worth looking again.

    Question - it looks a little soft for an original digital shot, did you soften it on purpose? Is this the original resolution you shot it at? - Its too small!!

    GB
  • 02-13-2004, 09:18 AM
    bobbythebandit
    Ilike it
    Well done for all the work you put in to it i am sure there was a temptation to post it as it was.Size is the only fault here, 222 x 300 is too small, aim for 350 x450 for this kind of pic.Thanks for sharing.
    Bobby
  • 02-13-2004, 10:12 AM
    cfarrell
    small image
    Thanks for the responses and sorry about the size. I'll post a bigger picture later today using Bobby's advice on image size (thanks for the tip by the way).

    I agree that the shot would have been better with a wider angle lens. Unfortunately this was taken at the widest angle on the S45. Perhaps I could have stepped back a bit, but that may have changed the composition. Definitely something to think about in the future.

    I'm not sure why the image looks soft, as the original is sharp. Maybe it lost some of its sharpness when I resized it to its current miniscule proportions.

    Thanks again for your comments and time.

    Corey
  • 02-13-2004, 10:26 AM
    stew
    my experience with photo redux, and nice pic
    if the original was sharp and your small image is soft, i would bet it's due to the pixel resolution reduction. when you reduce the image size down, the paint program will do some type of interpolation (eg, linear or bicubic). the results are generally good for the purpose of posting to this forum i think, but of course can change the photo especially if the change is dramatic as in your case. i find myself sizing to about a 5x7 image (good size for a post) and the pixel resolution ends up being about 85-90 range to meet the size restrictions. but that's for my photos (with a canon digital rebel). ymmv. my 2 cents!

    by the way, i like your pic too. good work!
  • 02-13-2004, 11:44 AM
    cfarrell
    1 Attachment(s)
    Bigger Picture
    Here is a larger size photo. Thanks for everyone's help.
  • 02-13-2004, 04:00 PM
    bobbythebandit
    Thats better!! and now i can really appreciate it.Well done !!
    Bobby
  • 02-19-2004, 12:07 AM
    PuckJunkey
    I'll second that; I wouldn't change a thing. :)