It can go on as long as their are willing participants...who is to judge who has gone too far or not far enough...Rob made a suggestion for a crop that I could not see and did it for me and I liked...what it does is show me where I might look a little closer when I do a return trip. In this particular instance I was much too far away to make this shot a full frame composition. Next time I will have the 1.7 teleconverter and this won't be an issue. This also holds true of the Water's Edge shot...later in the day, less harsh light...yadda, yadda.
I have a feeling that something else is at work with these decisions: format; both of reproduction and of capture.
Some shots, such as Chris's original frame, work well when viewed as rather large prints, because on a large scale, the different sections of a single picture allow deeper observation of smaller areas
because they are seen as larger. With smaller prints, it's far more difficult to see into detail, and then capture becomes less simple - one might have to be more radical and settle for smaller sections of whatever the reality in front of the camera might be.
This is akin to Robert Capa's (?) war photography dictum: if your images aren't good enough it's because you aren't close enough.
Not to say Chris didn't have a good image, just that getting tighter can be stronger. To a point, that is, and then it becomes something else.
Again, thanks for the opportunity to play.
Rob C
