Note the restraint I used in *not* commenting on the cropped sign. With a photo this good, one must acknowledge that the photographer had some very good reason for the crop. In this case, as we now see, the photographer is a master.

So why the crop, Dan?

Folks,

I see that the crop-critics haven't come back to express wonder as to exactly why this is cropped as it is. Have you noticed that Dan averages four featured images for every five submitted? or that his non-featured images are *excellent*?

How does he do it? I don't care whether his images are featured or not--the man is a master. Like Dorothy Parker's comment about Hemingway, "The simple thing he does looks so easy to do. But look at the boys who try to do it."

Sorry guys. Been a busy day/weekend. Well King. I'd like to say I know why the top of the sign isn't there. It was there when I created this image as this is a photoshop montage of two seperate images. When I montage I often leave something "unperfect" just because I think it is ethical to do so but I don't think this would have been it. Being so busy I wanted to get an image up and likely should have looked in my archives for the original copy but oh well. How it got cropped, for what reason, I don't remember. How's that for an answer! Must be getting old!

Interesting to read the preceding discussion. I hope King or Dan...or anyone...returns for more of a chat.

George,
You described yourself to a tee: smiling, warm, rural. I know you don't live out in the country, but I somehow see hayseeds caught in your hair.

Dan,
I set you up for a lie that anyone would believe--why'd you go and spoil it? Want me to make something up for you? some good reason for the odd crop?

Geroge,

I think Dan is now obligated to post a link to an alternative view of this mediocre image, either cropped as you suggest or with the whole damned sign in the picture.

Dan,
I'm glad we're having this discussion. I have two questions for you, inspired both by this photograph and by your very strong statement on another of your images, which I encourage every photographer who is still interested in learning about photography, as I am, to read:

http://www.weeklyshot.org/theme/night/response/104/

...just part of which I reproduce here:

"ALL of my images posted at WS and on my websites are REAL images- I don't add or move subjects- EVER in Photoshop. I dodge, burn, use curves, adjust and manipulate white balance for emotion as well as for correct color (just like I did with Tungsten films and correction filters with film), and sharpen. I'm I journalist through and through, a old darkroom ethic type photographer, and my images reflect that. And they are all taken by me. PERIOD."

Question one: If the image above is a montage, how does that fit in with the statement above, which would seem, on the face of it, to exclude montages?

Question two: How old are you, dude? (you don't hve to answer this). With your experience and the quality of your work and from what you say, I no longer get the feeling that you are 32 years old. I say you are older.

Bonus questions: How long ya' been shootin'? What's your favorite f-stop?

King- Just got the email about this reply. Currently on assigments, for the paper and on side jobs, right now and am swamped and likely will be for the next few days. Unfortunately I have little time to comment this time around. But I wanted to reply via my Blackberry asap while on the road because you posed a really great question fairly calling me to the carpet. Yep you caught me in my own words (damn I need to be more careful- LOL).

I guess I shouldn't make blanket statements as this is one of the 1% of 1% of images where I have montaged for purpose of stock/client (which this was). I can think of only two other digital montaged images and you know how many images I display on my non-blog site and have tons more that aren't so hopefully you can except that slip of mind. As soon as I could make comment I did say it was a montage and I would have from the get go if a comment was able to be posted before comment as I don't think it is right to ever conceal that fact. I'm honest about all my imagery as best as I can be but I make mistakes (like making blanket statements) and reserve the right (outside of montaged/digital creations) to keep some techniques secret at some point ;^). I also think it is reasonable to try new things at any point even after making a stupid blanket statement like that.

Your right I'm older. I'm all of 36 and have been a full time professional since I was 19. I started shooting at 17, maybe 16. Kind of got pushed into the field by those around me who liked my work and now don't know what else I'd do if I had to since photography is my passion not just my career.

My favorite F-Stop- all of 'em of course.

BTW thanks for the compliments. Hope this was coherent being typed on this little keypad. Can reply more if needed when I get to sit down and pop a beer.

I wanted to add that I love harsh criticism and being called out when I need it. It makes me better, and humble. Thanks everyone for the comments.

Dan,
Cool, dude. I have nothing against montages. I assumed you were separating your journalism--your professional ethics--and your personal, stock work. That would work in the context of the other image and this.

No reply necessary...just cutting you some slack.

P.S. Oh, to be 36 again!

No problem King. I do seperate the two but I still shouldn't have made a blanket statement. There is a lot of overlap in my personal and journalistic ethics. That is why I try to be honest as possible here.

What?!?!! This is a photoshopped image???!!! Dan, I am completely and utterly HORRIFIED!!! And not only am I completely and utterly horrified, I am also (and I want this to stand on the record) completely and utterly KIDDING!!!!