I tried using this photo in B/W as a contrast to the colour photos. The original was badly blown out around the edges so I just erased some of the edges and varied the opacity of the eraser to try to make it look faded out.
My question is, what about the feet? they don't show up in the photo. Should I cover that part with a photo? Is it alright to leave me with no feet? Seems weird.
Here's the link to the photo, hope someone has some ideas about this problem.
http://digitalscrapper.com/forums/ga...-year&cat=1370
Digital Scrapper
Results 1 to 6 of 6
Thread: what about feet?
-
07-06-2012, 03:06 PM #1
Digital Scrapper Diva
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 374
what about feet?
*************************************************
Grace
Elements 11
Windows 7 Home
Elements Organizer
Mozilla Firefox
Internet Explorer
-
07-06-2012, 05:10 PM #2
I don't see a problem with it because people don't always frame photos to include a full body shot. Again, if I were doing it, I'd remove some of the excess around the top part of the photo to balance it out a bit and make it looked as if it were originally framed that way.
Darcy Baldwin
Digital Scrapper Forum Director
Fontographer
darcy@digitalscrapper.com
{my gallery} {my blog}
-
07-07-2012, 09:50 PM #3
I like the way you utilized the blown out area to fade in your journaling. I think I would leave it as is. I thought about blowing out some of the top but then you probably won't get the feel of the path leading off behind you, which I think is part of the charm of the photo. I think the blown out area is working and looks like you have done something creative and unexpected. I think it draws you into the journaling. Just my 2 cents.
CS6, PSE8
Windows 7 64-bit, Google Chrome,
HP Pavilion dv7, HP Officejet Pro 8600 Plus
Wacom Intuos 4, Casio Exilim, Canon EOS 7D
My Gallery
-
07-09-2012, 05:03 PM #4
Hi Grace,
You raised a great question about the feet. Ordinarily, yes, it would be awkward to work with a photo where the feet (or hands, etc) are "cut off." But you were wise to use a photo mask on that image, which lessens the imact of the visual disconnect that would happen if the image were not masked. So, in this case, no... no need to cover that bit with another photo or an element. But you might consider that if you're ever working with a similar photo that isn't masked.
Good for you for displaying your great attention to detail. Your page looks very nice. You might consider moving the title down to that blank space above the square photos, however, just to move it away from the top of the page. It's usually always a good idea to leave a certain amount of margin around the edges of the page, and you have that on both sides and the bottom. Leaving equal or a bit more margin at the top would make the page look a bit more balanced.
Nice work!
Jan Walker
Jan's Digital Scrapper Gallery
Creative Teams:
Digital Scrapbook Artisan Guild
E-Scape and Scrap
Studio Manu at Scrapbook Graphics
-
07-10-2012, 03:08 AM #5
I too think it works OK .. it the fading out that helps

WendyComputer: Mainly Macs with OSX
Browser: Camino, Firefox & Safari
Photoshop & Elements: CS5 Design Suite, CS3 & Most Versions of Elements.
My Gallery here
Wendy's World at PET
Check out My Blog
-
07-11-2012, 12:53 PM #6
Digital Scrapper Diva
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 374
thanks everyone. since I am going to have to re-do the page (short story- back up not done before crash), I will try the idea of moving the title. You are right, I like the path in there, but I might lighten the left side a bit more to balance the white of the path.
Because i am having a fresh start and we are only half way through I am also thinking of trying a 12x12 format. I seem to be a "wordy" scrapper and that would give me more room.*************************************************
Grace
Elements 11
Windows 7 Home
Elements Organizer
Mozilla Firefox
Internet Explorer

Reply With Quote