Dear Emily,
I don't know how you get 2.2 MB from a 56 KB image. Do you think RIT
would have accepted an image of that size? Could you even have
downloaded it? You must be a magician. The original image was only
2.6 MB. It was saved for the web at the 56 KB size and that is
exactly the size that I found when I copied the image from the RIT
website. I explained why I didn't crop the photo in an earlier
post. The egrets are on the LHS, and the empty (negative) space
appears on the RHS in the direction of flight, where it should be, in
my opinion. The egrets (they're not gulls -- we were hundreds of
miles from the coast) appeared suddenly from upriver and I had no
time to change the settings on the camera. I shot four quick photos
and this was the most interesting, in my opinion. I do hope that the
image appeared to be tropical, because that's where it was exposed!
You may have been trying to suggest that this image is not of a
quality to appear on the RIT web site in the first place. I respect
that. It doesn't come close to the quality that yours have
consistently displayed. I am not a professional (in contrast to poor
Lea Murphy, who is one, and was the latest subject of your
evaluation, dare I say, attack?) and should probably just return to
lurking. Which I will do hence forth.
Generally I'm not this testy about criticism. But, I want it to be
constructive.
Warmest regards,
Roger
Roger Eichhorn
eichhorn@xxxxxx
On 12 Feb 2006, at 18:43, Emily L. Ferguson wrote:
Roger Eichhorn - Egret Flock
It's 15 inches long, 2.2 Meg when opened. I tried cropping it a
number of ways and all of them make it a lot less interesting
graphically and more conventional. But still it needs some
discipline somehow to deal with the very large basically empty
space on the nearly entire right half. There's something tropical
about the tone of the sky, but I wish the birds were as white as
egrets are. They look like gulls.
