Ok, not entirely... I think your photography and processing are better now then as shown in this set... but this set as a whole seems much more complete and relevant. This was obviously done prior to the establishment of your, \"I\'m going to present a magazine, not an article,\" thought process.
One thing I still don\'t understand is the randomness of your output sizes... I can understand using panoramic crops, or other more compositional crops, but you appear to have shots in 2:3 format that are showing as a variety of different sizes and I don\'t understand why?
Jan 31, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Previous versions of RichardLavigne's message #10297604 « the day ding's cherry was.. »
