Comments for Cat(h)
dadiOH
Here are a wee bird and a couple of crosses I shot two week ends ago
in the Burren, in Co. Clare, Ireland. They're probably full of
technical faults (and I'm putting on my chainmail in expectation of
the deluge of criticism), but they look pleasing to me.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43077823@N02/4121600495/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43077823@N02/4122377080/
I've taken the liberty of starting a new thread for comments, hope you don't
mind.
_________________
THE BIRD
I think it is a nice photo.
As others have said, the rock upon which the bird perches and the sunlit
portion of the bird are a bit hot and the two light areas in the background
are a bit distracting. Things like that are tough to overcome because, in
photos of this type, one pretty much has to take things as one finds them.
It would have helped a lot had you popped your flash to reduce the range
between high and low areas; not so much flash to overcome the ambient light,
just to fill a bit. The flash would have helped even if you were a
considerable distance away.
There is a phrase - which escapes me at the moment - for places within a
photograph which increase the visual impact if the subject is placed on one
of them. There are four in any rectilinear shape save square. To find
them, draw a diagonal between two corners; now draw a line perpendicular to
the diagonal from each corner. The two points where the lines intersect are
the sweet spots. Do the same with the other diagonal and you'll have four
sweet spots. If you'll look at paintings (or photos from skilled
photographers) you'll find that the primary subject is often placed in one
of them; secondary subjects can be placed in another; tertiary subjects at a
third.
Forget quaternary subjects, too many and it is always easiest with an odd
number.
I downloaded your photo and tried various croppings placing the bird as
above; since the bird was facing to viewer left, the only possible sweet
spots were top right and bottom right. I liked it best at top right,
thought it a minor improvement over the uncropped image.
____________________
THE CEMETARY
I liked it less.
The main reason I liked it less is that the subjects - the headstones(?) -
don't really stand out...everything is quite monochromatic and of similar
values. What it needs is a shaft of light from on high illuminating just
the crosses. Barring that unlikely but serendiptious event, what could have
been done? I can think of two, maybe three things...
1. Pop the flash. Can't say how useful that might have been as the photo
gives me no hint of scale...are the crosses 20' or 20" high? The bit of
iron fence sort of precludes the former so I suspect flash would have
helped.
One problem with an on camera flash would be that it would also illuminate
the foreground. If one had an off camera flash along, it could be feathered
so that only the top 3/4 or so of the crosses were illuminated, preferably
from an off lens axis angle. At the same time, the exposure could be
weighted toward the flash so that the ho-hum background and sky dropped down
some.
2. Get down LOW. On your belly. Make the crosses more prominent, lose much
background. Not easy to shoot like that with SLRs but there used to be an
accessory for most that made it easy...a right angle prism that slipped over
the camera eyepiece. It would rotate for vertical shots and made it very
easy to shoot from ground level as one could view the scene by looking down
into the prism.
3. Maybe change the angle from which you shot; i.e., move so that one cross
is close and prominent, other smaller and more distant. Improvement? Can't
say as it would depend on what was in the background.
HTH & HAND
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Cat(h)
> In another thread, you said...
>
> Here are a wee bird and a couple of crosses I shot two week ends ago
> in the Burren, in Co. Clare, Ireland. They're probably full of
> technical faults (and I'm putting on my chainmail in expectation of
> the deluge of criticism), but they look pleasing to me.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/43077823@N02/4121600495/
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/43077823@N02/4122377080/
>
> I've taken the liberty of starting a new thread for comments, hope you don't
> mind.
> _________________
Not a bit, thanks for taking the time.
>
> THE BIRD
>
> I think it is a nice photo.
>
> As others have said, the rock upon which the bird perches and the sunlit
> portion of the bird are a bit hot and the two light areas in the background
> are a bit distracting. Things like that are tough to overcome because, in
> photos of this type, one pretty much has to take things as one finds them.
> It would have helped a lot had you popped your flash to reduce the range
> between high and low areas; not so much flash to overcome the ambient light,
> just to fill a bit. The flash would have helped even if you were a
> considerable distance away.
That's a useful tip. As you guessed, the opportunity was just there,
and the bird didn't stay long. Although robins are such cocky little
buggers that they tend to give you the best chances, don't they!
>
> There is a phrase - which escapes me at the moment - for places within a
> photograph which increase the visual impact if the subject is placed on one
> of them. There are four in any rectilinear shape save square. To find
> them, draw a diagonal between two corners; now draw a line perpendicular to
> the diagonal from each corner. The two points where the lines intersect are
> the sweet spots. Do the same with the other diagonal and you'll have four
> sweet spots. If you'll look at paintings (or photos from skilled
> photographers) you'll find that the primary subject is often placed in one
> of them; secondary subjects can be placed in another; tertiary subjects at a
> third.
> Forget quaternary subjects, too many and it is always easiest with an odd
> number.
I am familiar with the theory outlined above, and when I have the
luxury of time (say, inanimate objects and landscapes), I try to
practice it. Not that I'm always successful, of course!
>
> I downloaded your photo and tried various croppings placing the bird as
> above; since the bird was facing to viewer left, the only possible sweet
> spots were top right and bottom right. I liked it best at top right,
> thought it a minor improvement over the uncropped image.
> ____________________
>
> THE CEMETARY
>
> I liked it less.
>
> The main reason I liked it less is that the subjects - the headstones(?) -
> don't really stand out...everything is quite monochromatic and of similar
> values.
These are the joys of anything but bright sunlight in Ireland in
Autumn/Winter :-)
Quite apart from anything, dusk was actually falling,so there was no
natural light to improve the situation - now, I'm sounding like I'm
making excuses... I could probably have used the flash, as you
suggested above. It is something I am not used to doing, and must try
to think of in those situations in future.
What it needs is a shaft of light from on high illuminating just
> the crosses. Barring that unlikely but serendiptious event, what could have
> been done? I can think of two, maybe three things...
>
> 1. Pop the flash. Can't say how useful that might have been as the photo
> gives me no hint of scale...are the crosses 20' or 20" high? The bit of
> iron fence sort of precludes the former so I suspect flash would have
> helped.
>
> One problem with an on camera flash would be that it would also illuminate
> the foreground. If one had an off camera flash along, it could be feathered
> so that only the top 3/4 or so of the crosses were illuminated, preferably
> from an off lens axis angle. At the same time, the exposure could be
> weighted toward the flash so that the ho-hum background and sky dropped down
> some.
>
> 2. Get down LOW. On your belly. Make the crosses more prominent, lose much
> background. Not easy to shoot like that with SLRs but there used to be an
> accessory for most that made it easy...a right angle prism that slipped over
> the camera eyepiece. It would rotate for vertical shots and made it very
> easy to shoot from ground level as one could view the scene by looking down
> into the prism.
In answer to both above, the crosses were very ancient and eroded, and
probably quite sunk in. They didn't emerge from the ground by more
than 60cm or so, and while I was not on my belly, I was actually
sitting on my arse, cross legged to hold the camera firmly due to poor
light, in a spot which was actually below the ground level from which
the crosses emerged, perhaps by as much as half of their height or so
(you would not believe how lumpy the ground is in old Irish
cemetaries).
>
> 3. Maybe change the angle from which you shot; i.e., move so that one cross
> is close and prominent, other smaller and more distant. Improvement? Can't
> say as it would depend on what was in the background.
They were exactly level (as in side by side), so that may not have
been possible, but I appreciate your point, there is a dire lack of
contrast in the photo. I have looked at it as uploaded to flicker,
and for whatever reasons it actually looks even less contrasty than my
saved photo on my own screen here at home.
>
> HTH & HAND
Erm, what does HAND mean?
Thanks again for your efforts - note taken, and comments saved.
Caít()
Charles E Hardwidge
news:0ScOm.18386$F44....@newsfe21.ams2...
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/43077823@N02/4121600495/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/43077823@N02/4122377080/
> THE BIRD
> As others have said, the rock upon which the bird perches and the sunlit
> portion of the bird are a bit hot and the two light areas in the
> background are a bit distracting. [...]
> There is a phrase - which escapes me at the moment - for places within a
> photograph which increase the visual impact if the subject is placed on
> one of them. There are four in any rectilinear shape save square.
> I downloaded your photo and tried various croppings placing the bird as
> above; since the bird was facing to viewer left, the only possible sweet
> spots were top right and bottom right. I liked it best at top right,
> thought it a minor improvement over the uncropped image.
> THE CEMETARY
>
> The main reason I liked it less is that the subjects - the headstones(?) -
> don't really stand out...everything is quite monochromatic and of similar
> values.
[...]
> 3. Maybe change the angle from which you shot; i.e., move so that one
> cross is close and prominent, other smaller and more distant.
> Improvement? Can't say as it would depend on what was in the background.
Once things go too OT or personal starting a new topic is a good idea.
They're called grids. I tend to use the diagonal grid but there are others.
Both photos were pleasing but the composition and light could've been
better. Sometimes, you just have too find the right angle or wait for
another day. I've got a bunch of shots like that from my last shoot, and a
couple where random luck helped and hindered.
I'm not trying to force things or fake things. That means I'm more accepting
of where my ability is at. Like the bird, I could obsess about the motorboat
silhouetted against some docked ships. Like the stones, I could fret about
the light conditions on some buildings. But it doesn't matter.
I'm trying to live in the now and be content with it.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
dadiOH
>> THE CEMETARY
>>
>> I liked it less.
>>
>> The main reason I liked it less is that the subjects - the
>> headstones(?) - don't really stand out...everything is quite
>> monochromatic and of similar values.
>
> These are the joys of anything but bright sunlight in Ireland in
> Autumn/Winter :-)
That's why I've stayed in the tropics. Or close to.
_______________
>> 2. Get down LOW. On your belly. Make the crosses more prominent,
>> lose much background. Not easy to shoot like that with SLRs but
>> there used to be an accessory for most that made it easy...a right
>> angle prism that slipped over the camera eyepiece. It would rotate
>> for vertical shots and made it very easy to shoot from ground level
>> as one could view the scene by looking down into the prism.
>
> In answer to both above, the crosses were very ancient and eroded, and
> probably quite sunk in. They didn't emerge from the ground by more
> than 60cm or so, and while I was not on my belly, I was actually
> sitting on my arse, cross legged to hold the camera firmly due to poor
> light, in a spot which was actually below the ground level from which
> the crosses emerged, perhaps by as much as half of their height or so
Good for you, you did what you could. Perhaps a folding shovel for your
kit? :)
___________________
> (you would not believe how lumpy the ground is in old Irish
> cemetaries).
Possibly caused by Irish corpses still trying to jig :)
___________________
>> HTH & HAND
>
> Erm, what does HAND mean?
Have A Nice Day
______________
> Thanks again for your efforts - note taken, and comments saved.
YW
dadiOH
> They're called grids. I tend to use the diagonal grid but there are
> others.
May be but not the phrase I was trying to think of. Got another?
Charles E Hardwidge
> Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
>> They're called grids. I tend to use the diagonal grid but there are
>> others.
>
> May be but not the phrase I was trying to think of. Got another?
Yeah, they're called... *dink*
Oops, sorry. *shake* shake* Put 10p in the slot, Mistah.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Pete
like to comment on your photos:
I love them.
Robins are sweet, but haven't yet learnt how to pose for the camera. To me,
you have captured exactly what robins do when presented with a camera. Your
picture evoked a strong emotional response - that is what art is all about.
As for the setting: wonderful.
The cemetery photo also evoked an emotional response. From the craft aspect,
I feel that the camera may have let you down by underexposing the shot and
it looks a tad too cold on my monitor. That is just my opinion.
You have inspired me to take more photos for which I thank you.
Pete
Wolfgang Weisselberg
>> HTH & HAND
Have A Nice Day.
Could also mean Have A Nice Death in other contexts.
-Wolfgang
Paul Furman
> Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
>> They're called grids. I tend to use the diagonal grid but there are
>> others.
>
> May be but not the phrase I was trying to think of. Got another?
'Rule of thirds', if that's not too obvious...
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Paul Furman
> dadiOH wrote:
>> In another thread, you said...
>>
>> Here are a wee bird and a couple of crosses I shot two week ends ago
>> in the Burren, in Co. Clare, Ireland. They're probably full of
>> technical faults (and I'm putting on my chainmail in expectation of
>> the deluge of criticism), but they look pleasing to me.
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/43077823@N02/4121600495/
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/43077823@N02/4122377080/
>>
>> I've taken the liberty of starting a new thread for comments, hope you don't
>> mind.
>
Yes, I assume the OP went south. Nice redo.
>> THE BIRD
>>
>> I think it is a nice photo.
>>
>> ...the two light areas in the background
>> are a bit distracting.
The blobs in the background could be an opportunity to add to the
composition. Shift yourself around & see where they look good and
emphasize the bird or it's setting somehow. I'm very intentional about
positioning that soft background stuff when I shoot, it's become second
nature. The white blobs are kind of like the robin's belly and the
rocks, so maybe a way to get a pattern going with all three and tie them
together.
Nobody commented and it's pretty basic but the bird is centered which is
usually kind of boring and static. Lots of potential with a little
shifting around. My intuitive crop is to remove the right rock so it's
nearly square. Then there's two rocks & two blobs... sort of... it's not
a great solution but maybe you can see the idea.
>> THE CEMETARY
>>
>> I liked it less.
I liked this one more, although it has flaws, there is a charm in the
interplay of elements. I can see you were playing with the relationships.
There is some awkward stuff too like the right stone (almost) blocks the
horizon, but I like how the tilted mountain matches the tilted stone.
The left stone has the horizon going through it's cross and that cancels
it out.
>> 3. Maybe change the angle from which you shot; i.e., move so that one cross
>> is close and prominent, other smaller and more distant. Improvement? Can't
>> say as it would depend on what was in the background.
>
> They were exactly level (as in side by side), so that may not have
> been possible,
If you move to either side and closer, one of them becomes taller. I
kind of like them as a matched pair though, with the background
supplying variety.
> but I appreciate your point, there is a dire lack of
> contrast in the photo. I have looked at it as uploaded to flicker,
> and for whatever reasons it actually looks even less contrasty than my
> saved photo on my own screen here at home.
That image can take a lot of adjustment though, if the sky is masked
separately.
Um, I snipped it already but you mentioned how lumpy the ground is. If
this is nearby, I'd love to see that captured with the stones. It could
be fascinating, especially with long shadows. Thanks for sharing.