-- Alan McCord (lightandglass@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000

Answers

Let's try a second time with the smaller one.

-- Alan McCord (lightandglass@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

Let's see...

How about this?

-- Alan McCord (lightandglass@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

Final try...for today! Sorry.

-- Alan McCord (lightandglass@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

I like the image, but the scan looks very flat, contrastless.

Also, too much compression, images here can be up to 50 k (yours is only 20).

Cheers, Jan

-- Jan van Bodegraven (jan@macrophoto.com), August 03, 2000.

The scan was done on a friends HP Photosmart scanner and I didn't quite get the hang of things. The Photo.Net site must compress images because the file is actually 37K on my machine.

Maybe this one will look better?

-- Alan McCord (lightandglass@hotmail.com), August 04, 2000.

I promise to get the hang of this image post eventually. Sorry.

-- Alan McCord (lightandglass@hotmail.com), August 04, 2000.

I keep getting a 'hard return' thrown into my image source line - sorry (again).

Here is the URL: http://albums.photopoint.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=616766&a=4501498&p=25548821

-- Alan McCord (lightandglass@hotmail.com), August 04, 2000.

What no fill flash on this what are you doing. After your post about fill flash on Steves bird I have to laugh. To post this totally overexposed shot is a bit funny. This is at least a stop over so try again. The grain whether from the scan or whatever is ugly and also doesn't help. Also if you want to learn about flash read my comment on Steve's bird shot.

-- Keith Anderson (andos@pacific.net.au), August 05, 2000.

I disagree with Keith. I like the image alot. As it was loading though, I almost expected to see a dark foreground of water or a pond or something. I think a little darker foreground to contrast with the mistiness would have improved the image alot. I still like it though.

-- John Foster (johngfoster@hotmail.com), August 05, 2000.

I don't think this is overexposed; it just goes for a different effect. With a "proper" exposure the one-tone appaearance would be lost. I did something similar for a silhouette of a radio telescope dish in New Mexico, found on my site (look in the thumbnails under "past pictures of the undefined time period"). I'd post it here, but such an photo inescapably shows the hand of man.

-- Christian Deichert (torgophile@aol.com), August 13, 2000.

I like this photograph, especially the monochromaticism (is that a word?) with just the hint of green near the front. I don't think it's overexposed, but I bet it would make an interesting shot a few stops darker. Not better, probably just different. Good shot.

-- Jeremy Pursley (jpursle@doce.ufl.edu), August 17, 2000.