n.v.m. wrote:
cutting off the head and feet , huge boo boo.
In this instance, I disagree. The feet are hidden by the grass so you can't help that. In my honest opinion, cropping to the top of the head here is really no difference than doing so in a headshot.
Come one LB!!!!(teasing me? ) I slung hay bales when I was a young lad in Iowa and here in Maryland. Now I have NEVER worked with the class and beauty of this "baler". Just sweaty, stinky young boys!!!
She is gorgeous!!!!
Dan
No big deal on the original photo. But if you're gonna crop tight, why not double down? What if the original photo was cropped at the bottom just below her fingernails? That would draw more attention to her eyes, flat tummy, and french manicure.
bryanlindsey wrote:
No big deal on the original photo. But if you're gonna crop tight, why not double down? What if the original photo was cropped at the bottom just below her fingernails? That would draw more attention to her eyes, flat tummy, and french manicure.
IMHO, FWIW
Brian, I see what you're saying on the crop. It's just difficult for me to wrap my head around a "dimensionally odd" (to me) crop. I'm weird that way I suppose.
Two great images, LB! Somehow, I like the second image a little bit more. While cutting off the feet is perfectly fine since they are pretty much hidden behind grass anyway, but I would like to see more of the hair in the first image. The eye contact in the second also adds to my preference for the second image but they are both fine though.
on this one?
) I slung hay bales when I was a young lad in Iowa and here in Maryland. Now I have NEVER worked with the class and beauty of this "baler". Just sweaty, stinky young boys!!!
