Some candid shots
John Sisker
Here are some shots for your evaluation
http://www.tinplatedesign.com/Picture-1.jpg
http://www.tinplatedesign.com/Picture-2.jpg
http://www.tinplatedesign.com/Picture-3.jpg
Thanks for your involvement.
John Sisker
http://www.tinplatedesign.com
Robert Coe
: To those who are interested.
Overcropped; apparently oversharpened.
: http://www.tinplatedesign.com/Picture-2.jpg
Nice. You'll get bashed for the blown highlights, but sometimes those are hard
to avoid.
: http://www.tinplatedesign.com/Picture-3.jpg
Can't make that link come up.
Bob
Markus Fuenfrocken
> To those who are interested.
> Here are some shots for your evaluation
I like the second one, nice snapshot, but it would be a much better picture
if you had stepped a bit to the right and pan the camera to the left to get
rid of that ugly plastic wrapped pile of boxes in the upper right corner.
Just a thought.
Markus
tony cooper
wrote:
>To those who are interested.
You're learning. Instead of a scrapbook full of vacation shots you
are linking to a manageable number of specific shots.
#1 is an interesting subject but it looks flat. Whenever I shoot
something like this, I take multiple shots and pick the best of the
litter. I'd like to see that one if you pulled back a few feet and
didn't have the water centered. Think of it as a composition rather
than a capture of just the feature.
#2 is a better composition, but the blow-out in the pumpkins on the
right and the squash in the wheelbarrow is distracting. Blow-out is
difficult to control. You have light, and you have a surface that
reflects the light...excessively, in this case. That might work
better under-exposed and then boosted in post-processing. Depends,
though, on what program you have available for post-processing.
#3 is an abstract, and that type of image is extremely difficult to
pull off. No two people look at an abstract the same way, but
generally they work better if they have some feature within the
abstract that draws the eye.
The theme of this month's camera club competition for me is
"Abstract". I've taken dozens of shots, but have yet to come up with
one I'd consider entering. Even an abstract has to have composition
and a focus of attention, and that's difficult to pull off.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter
news:7gv7k5h23nmkcvip4...@4ax.com...
Just a suggestion! Last month I entered a waterfall with the colors inverted
and presented in upside down. It was runner up for image of the month as a
digital. If you have no waterfalls, look for distorted reflections in
hubcaps, motorcycle helmets, chrome on old cars, puddle reflections, etc.
Try distorting the dimensions in PS. My favorite abstract is with flowers to
take hand held multiple exposures. Try some of these it will open you up to
a new dimension. BTW, most of the time my abstracts, which are my favorite
things to do and are well received by the members of our club, do not do
well in competition.
--
Peter
Pat
Thank you for posting something related to photography. There's too
much other BS in this NG.
Picture 1 is a bit too cropped. You need more on the top. You can't
crop in the middle of a fall. You need a natural definition. Now, if
you are going to reshoot it, slow your shutter speed WAY down and get
some nice milky water. That you'll have something.
Picture 3. Nice, but you need to reshoot it to nail it. The balls
are at various levels because they are more or less in layers. Set up
a GOOD tripod. Shoot and focus on the top layer. Reshoot but focus
on the second layer. Reshoot and focus on the lower layers.
Literally change your focus point for the three shots.
In HDR photography people blend images based on luminosity. You want
to do the same sort of thing but blend based on focus. You want to
merge all three images into one image where everything is in focus.
It'll be easy to do for that picture and it'll give an image that few
can duplicate -- any many will wonder how you got that much in focus
all at once. Go for it. Then you'll have a great photo.
Good luck with it.
John Sisker
news:Y7CdnViyQqeKcN7W...@earthlink.com...
I want to personally thank those who supplied some helpful comments and
creative suggestions in relation to these particular photos. Now we are
getting somewhere, as compared to the past when I included so many pictures,
that is obviously became so overwhelming to some, that they simply
categorized everything into their generic label of crap. But this way, now
we are on the right track. And by taking just a slice at a time, this now
gives me some constructive ideas on what to look out for.
For this I am appreciative to those who were willing to help. Likewise, I
know that some of the comments coming from others will be subjective in
nature, but all seem to mean well and do provide some good food for thought.
Now, this is what this should be all about, for simply bashing one another
provides nothing of value, and only helps loose the good input from others
into a long thread that says absolutely nothing.
John Sisker - Huntington Beach, California
www.tinplatedesign.com
Robert Coe
wrote:
: On Jan 5, 8:53�pm, "John Sisker" <jsis...@sprynet.com> wrote:
: > To those who are interested.
: >
: > Here are some shots for your evaluation
: >
: > http://www.tinplatedesign.com/Picture-1.jpg
: >
: > http://www.tinplatedesign.com/Picture-2.jpg
: >
: > http://www.tinplatedesign.com/Picture-3.jpg
: >
: > Thanks for your involvement.
: >
: > John Siskerhttp://www.tinplatedesign.com
:
: Thank you for posting something related to photography. There's too
: much other BS in this NG.
:
: Picture 1 is a bit too cropped. You need more on the top. You can't
: crop in the middle of a fall. You need a natural definition. Now, if
: you are going to reshoot it, slow your shutter speed WAY down and get
: some nice milky water. That you'll have something.
Where did this notion come from that flowing or falling water should be made
to look milky? That's the current fashion in many photographic circles,
presumably on the assumption that it's how one's eye perceives flowing water.
But I think pictures done that way actually look less realistic than those in
which the water is frozen with a fast shutter speed. To me the milky/silky
look is artificial and unattractive, and I refuse to go along with it. Is
there anybody out there who agrees with me?
(Note that I'm not making excuses for the picture as displayed. It is indeed
overcropped. I've already said as much in an earlier reply to the original
post.)
Bob
tony cooper
>On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 08:56:37 -0800 (PST), Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us>
>wrote:
>: On Jan 5, 8:53�pm, "John Sisker" <jsis...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>: > To those who are interested.
>: >
>: > Here are some shots for your evaluation
>: >
>: > http://www.tinplatedesign.com/Picture-1.jpg
>: >
>: > http://www.tinplatedesign.com/Picture-2.jpg
>: >
>: > http://www.tinplatedesign.com/Picture-3.jpg
>: >
>: > Thanks for your involvement.
>: >
>: > John Siskerhttp://www.tinplatedesign.com
>:
>: Thank you for posting something related to photography. There's too
>: much other BS in this NG.
>:
>: Picture 1 is a bit too cropped. You need more on the top. You can't
>: crop in the middle of a fall. You need a natural definition. Now, if
>: you are going to reshoot it, slow your shutter speed WAY down and get
>: some nice milky water. That you'll have something.
>
>Where did this notion come from that flowing or falling water should be made
>to look milky? That's the current fashion in many photographic circles,
>presumably on the assumption that it's how one's eye perceives flowing water.
>But I think pictures done that way actually look less realistic than those in
>which the water is frozen with a fast shutter speed. To me the milky/silky
>look is artificial and unattractive, and I refuse to go along with it. Is
>there anybody out there who agrees with me?
Will you settle for a "Depends"? There are images where sharply
defined dancing droplets look best, and images where the milky look
works. Distance is a factor. If, in a long view, the droplets aren't
going to show, then maybe the milky view works better.
>(Note that I'm not making excuses for the picture as displayed. It is indeed
>overcropped. I've already said as much in an earlier reply to the original
>post.)
>
>Bob
--
Savageduck
I think the scene and the intent of the photographer dictate the
representation. Both work for given scenes and the final results are
ultimately judged by the tastes of the viewer.
Here is one of my running water shots from earlier this year;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DSC1012w.jpg
There is certainly a trend to use an ND filter and slow things down,
and that may be overused.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Pete
> Where did this notion come from that flowing or falling water should be
> made
> to look milky? That's the current fashion in many photographic circles,
> presumably on the assumption that it's how one's eye perceives flowing
> water.
> But I think pictures done that way actually look less realistic than those
> in
> which the water is frozen with a fast shutter speed. To me the milky/silky
> look is artificial and unattractive, and I refuse to go along with it. Is
> there anybody out there who agrees with me?
I agree - it is now a clich�.
While it's unavoidable under low-light and with large format plus high DOF,
technical limitations rarely please an audience.
Very occasionally the effect can work, especially with multiple flash and
rear curtain sync, but I find the same as you: water movement frozen by a
fast shutter has the wow-factor (probably because we are unable to see it
like that).
Some HDR images impress me greatly because I've never seen anything like
them before. I'm sure they will become a fashion then a clich�.
Pete
Peter
news:upihk591gqhag2kdh...@4ax.com...
It depends on what the photographer is trying to convey. Last summer I took
a shot of a glacier calving. The ice berg was frozen in mid air. For a study
of the subject the shot was perfect. As a work of art it would have
benefitted from a slower shutter speed, to imply motion. No one can say you
are right, or wrong. My personal preference though, is for slower speeds, to
convey a sense of motion. but not so slow as to get the milky effect. If you
shoot at just the right speed, which will vary with the speed of the water,
you get defined lines. I have also been known to shoot an ocean for 30
seconds to flatten the water.
Since this is a matter of taste, I see no right or wrong, just personal
preference.
--
Peter
Robert Coe
: In Message-ID:<upihk591gqhag2kdh...@4ax.com> posted on Sat, 09 Jan
: 2010 13:59:10 -0500, Robert Coe wrote: Begin
:
: >Where did this notion come from that flowing or falling water should be made
: >to look milky? That's the current fashion in many photographic circles,
: >presumably on the assumption that it's how one's eye perceives flowing water.
: >But I think pictures done that way actually look less realistic than those in
: >which the water is frozen with a fast shutter speed. To me the milky/silky
: >look is artificial and unattractive, and I refuse to go along with it. Is
: >there anybody out there who agrees with me?
: Maybe it's the insinuation of movement that a blur conveys?
: There's a fascination with running water that seems acquired at an early age
: as illustrated by this casual shot done at last year's Earth Day celebration in
: Balboa Park, San Diego: http://i45.tinypic.com/25yzyw3.jpg
Yeah, and I think the water looks better because you didn't make it milky. Not
that you could have; the subject (your granddaughter?) would never have held
still for a slower shutter speed. To me, the insuation of movement is clearly
there.
Too bad about the guy on the ledge; that would have been a really nice picture
without him in the way. (OYOH, if he's the girl's father, you might not have
gotten such a good expression without him there.)
Bob
Robert Coe
wrote:
: "Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote in message
: > On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 08:56:37 -0800 (PST), Pat
: > <gro...@artisticphotography.us>
: > wrote:
: > : On Jan 5, 8:53 pm, "John Sisker" <jsis...@sprynet.com> wrote:
: > : > To those who are interested.
: > : >
: > : > Here are some shots for your evaluation
: > : >
: > : > http://www.tinplatedesign.com/Picture-1.jpg
: > : >
: > : > http://www.tinplatedesign.com/Picture-2.jpg
: > : >
: > : > http://www.tinplatedesign.com/Picture-3.jpg
: > : >
: > : > Thanks for your involvement.
: > : >
: > : > John Siskerhttp://www.tinplatedesign.com
: > :
: > : Thank you for posting something related to photography. There's too
: > : much other BS in this NG.
: > :
: > : Picture 1 is a bit too cropped. You need more on the top. You can't
: > : crop in the middle of a fall. You need a natural definition. Now, if
: > : you are going to reshoot it, slow your shutter speed WAY down and get
: > : some nice milky water. That you'll have something.
: >
: > Where did this notion come from that flowing or falling water should be
: > made to look milky? That's the current fashion in many photographic
: > circles, presumably on the assumption that it's how one's eye perceives
: > flowing water.
: > But I think pictures done that way actually look less realistic than
: > milky/silky look is artificial and unattractive, and I refuse to go
: > along with it. Is there anybody out there who agrees with me?
: >
: > (Note that I'm not making excuses for the picture as displayed. It is
: > indeed overcropped. I've already said as much in an earlier reply to
: > the original post.)
:
:
: It depends on what the photographer is trying to convey. Last summer I took
: a shot of a glacier calving. The ice berg was frozen in mid air. For a study
: of the subject the shot was perfect. As a work of art it would have
: benefitted from a slower shutter speed, to imply motion. No one can say you
: are right, or wrong. My personal preference though, is for slower speeds, to
: convey a sense of motion. but not so slow as to get the milky effect. If you
: shoot at just the right speed, which will vary with the speed of the water,
: you get defined lines. I have also been known to shoot an ocean for 30
: seconds to flatten the water.
: Since this is a matter of taste, I see no right or wrong, just personal
: preference.
I quite agree. My bemusement at the current fashion stems from the observation
that it wasn't always so. I remember a time when no one would have dreamed of
deliberately making flowing water look milky.
Bob
John Sisker
To all who responded to this original post:
There has been such good information coming forth in this regard, that now I
have the incentive to go back and try this original waterfall picture again.
I picked that one, for it will be the easiest one to duplicate. However, now
armed with some helpful ideas and suggestions, I want to take some
comparison shots. Likewise, I do agree, the original was too cropped. There
was reason for this, but now I can't remember why. Maybe when I am out at
the location again, the situation will be different.
All in all, this has been a good lesson for me. By narrowing such
suggestions to just a few pictures, naturally I received a lot more positive
and helpful feedback, than just the typical bashing from those apparently
overwhelmed with the complexity of it all.
But for this waterfall picture; now I want to try a number of things. This
involved not only pulling out a bit for the overall shot, if I can, but to
use different shutter speeds to see just how the water looks. It is
interesting how there was so much talk on how one thinks water should or
should not look like. Now I want to see this for myself.
Again, I want to thank all involved in this post/thread, for at least to me,
this is what a newsgroup like this is suppose to be all about. Likewise,
this was also a good lesson, which hopefully I can apply to other similar
shots as well. Photography, like many other things is a work in progress.
Once we think we know it all, we're done.