Negative Spider

Oakley

What do you think? The "negative" effect too....negative?

gubbs

Hi Ryan,

I think the neg version works quite well but I there's a couple of other things that I think may help -

The buildings and blown sky are a distracting, but the trees are cool, so I reckon a crop might work quite well, also the spider is a bit too central in the shot so if you apply the rule of thirds to the spider whilst cropping.

Oakley

gubbs wrote:

Hi Ryan,

I think the neg version works quite well but I there's a couple of other things that I think may help -

The buildings and blown sky are a distracting, but the trees are cool, so I reckon a crop might work quite well, also the spider is a bit too central in the shot so if you apply the rule of thirds to the spider whilst cropping.

OK...I think this is what you are thinking....right? Or is this "too" cropped. I know that it's more "fuzzy" with the close-up. I'm not sure which I like best. What do you think gubbs? And thanks for your help!:D

gubbs

Oakley wrote:

OK...I think this is what you are thinking....right? Or is this "too" cropped. I know that it's more "fuzzy" with the close-up. I'm not sure which I like best. What do you think gubbs? And thanks for your help!:D

What do you think??

I prefer it but, I'm not sure about the neg bit now sorry! Although the trees have gone. Softness is an issue now too, I think your point of focus is about 1 o'clock to the spider (a smaller aperture would have helped to increase the depth of field)

Having said all that, I still like it

Oakley

gubbs wrote:

What do you think??

I prefer it but, I'm not sure about the neg bit now sorry! Although the trees have gone. Softness is an issue now too, I think your point of focus is about 1 o'clock to the spider (a smaller aperture would have helped to increase the depth of field)

Having said all that, I still like it

lol...thanks for your help anyway! I think I'll keep it as is...but I'm learnin'...