I rather liked the original since, after I understood what I at least
thought was the significance of the background, I thought one should be
able to see it as a secondary subject.
But I also see the point of blurring the background as for shallow DOF
but think, it that's the case, that it should be more extreme than what
you did. Now it just looks out of focus but not sufficiently out of focus.
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/9/2014 12:08 PM, Moose wrote:
On 9/8/2014 4:10 PM, Leo Wesson wrote:
Hi all,
A recent portrait.
http://leowesson.smugmug.com/2014/Selects/i-7wTqgzR/0/L/20140909lww-L.jpg
I like this a lot. I wonder if less DOF, to tone down the detail in the
background, might not be better.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wesson/Portrait.htm>
Softly Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
