> I do appreciate it when someone looks that closely at one of my photos and > offers suggestions to make it better. The cropping was intentional but I sure > missed that spot upper right. JIMMy Thanks for the feedback: to many however "looking that closely" is tantamount to picking nits. In the old days there was probably some merit in doing that as such flaws would seldome make it past a picture editor. Today, with digital, I wonder if magazines etc look as critically at images? With digital, it really is only the broader picture (subject, composition, lighting) that matters. Elements in the background don't rule a shot out because they can "be gone" so easily anyway. The only consideration is how long (man hours) it will take to clone them out. The dark thingy in your shot: would take under a minute to kill, so does it really deserve comment? Would it make your shot any less tempting to a magazine that liked it? I doubt it quite frankly, any more than they would worry about cloning out the fag packet for use in countries which are sensitive to cigarette-stuff in the media. I guess the lesson for me right now is to step back from the detail and comment only on the pictures I like "as a whole". There are a few in this week's gallery that deserve praise (coincidentally, they have no nits either ;o). Bob
