Shoot-In Water: Commentary by Al
Al Denelsbeck
Okay, abuse fans, I'm taking a little time to sit down and put my
scattered thoughts to, uh, binary charges I guess, and give my honest,
forthright, and exceptionally uneducated opinions about this week's
offerings. If you like my comments, obviously I am a man of great insight
and observation. And if you don't, I'm some schmuck on an ego trip.
Whatever works.
A small word in advance: I consider the water mandate vague enough
that I'm placing only small emphasis on it. I'm more concerned with the
value as a photograph, but I do think water should at least be a key factor
in some way.
Mike Benveniste: Immediately striking because of the colors, and the
composition ain't bad at all. Not sure if I like the tiny bit of horizon
peeking through - mixed feelings on that. The monochrome landscape broken
by the complementary color of the water makes this very direct, even though
it isn't much more than a 'landscape' pic. The tree is a good touch, but
I'm not sure what the yellow under the waterfall is.
Peter Boorman (Bandicoot): A confusing image, in a way. Why the
spring? Seems like a small clash between the industrial or geometrical
aspect of the metal versus the water drops, bright light, and green
background, which gives it all a feel of being outdoors in bright sun (and
great effect on lighting if it isn't!). Stark and direct, and the limited
depth prevents the viewer from following the path of the spring - instead,
it's presented in pieces. I'm mixed on this one, not only from the water
standpoint, but as a geometric presentation.
Bowser: At first glance, I said "Just lily pads". Granted, the
biggest single expanse I've ever seen, but just pads. However, even with
the monotonous pattern, there are compositional elements at work - the
color from the skyline which does not directly show at all in the pic, the
placement of the grasses in the frame, and the depth which takes the
speckling at the top of the picture and renders it into detailed pads at
the bottom. Interesting! Actually draws more attention than it seems like
it should. For those learning how to compose, notice the arc of the skyline
centered, the grasses which aren't, and how the grasses do not break the
lines. Also, a distinct avoidance of the Rule of Thirds which nevertheless
works - a good example of following guidelines only up to a point.
Alan Browne: An interesting and monochromatic still-life, where the
steam just barely makes an appearance. Well done lighting, and two subtle
pointers to bottom right of the frame - the kettlespout, and the lip of the
glass. Emphasis on curves and lines. I would rather not see the lip of the
glass cut off at top, but this is minor. There is some unknown line up
there going in the opposite direction from the 'pointers', and this catches
my attention too (but I tend to lock onto those things for some reason).
Nice simple geometry in an 'everyday' setting, with a compelling single
color to boot.
George (AKA Carbuff): I like the lighting, I like the colors. But I'm
left with what I'm supposed to be looking at, Focus draws attention smack
to the center, as do the lines of the leaves, but then what? I want
something to be there. It might work better as an abstract from a lower
angle that gives greater depth and avoids that direction towards center.
Smooth bokeh from that lens, though.
Ken Cashion: Okay, first thought was "That ain't water!" And it's a
stretch, counting the ice cube. But there's no getting over the fact that
it's an evocative image, very very emotional, with everything in frame
working together to produce the effect and nothing detracting. The
attention goes clearly to the glass from great use of DOF, and from the
subtle position of the guy's head, and from the even-more-subtle strongest
light hitting the glass. Shows just a hair too much evidence of
underexposure. So some points lost on the 'water' part, but very high marks
simply as a good photo. Nice job!
Matt Clara: Ah, somebody had to do it - ironically dealing with the
subject by enhancing the complete lack of it! This wouldn't work if the
subject was "giraffe", but it works here. A nice shot of textures and
patterns. But, unfortunately, I've seen a lot of these, and this one lacks
some kind of 'oomph'. As such, it loses a little for being 'gimmicky' and
not quite standing up on its own. Even just catching a point that the
cracks seemed to emphasize, one way or another, would have strengthened
this one.
Dallas Dahms: A good, simple, but curiously compelling image. From
the distinct detail of the water edge and clinging droplets, to the
specular highlights so far out of focus. And again, another monochromatic
shot in color - lot of them this time. I can't pin down why this works so
well. And often, the hexagonal rendering of the highlights could be
distracting, but here they're part of the composition and the geometry
seems to counterpoint the randomness of the natural water, with that red
light thrown in for emphasis. Hard to say why, but it works for me.
Mine: I wanted the colors, I wanted the light. The one I was trying
for didn't come out acceptably. That's all I'm going to say. But am I the
only one that sees the "jh" in there? Anyone with those initials wanna buy
it?
Bret Douglas: Water is in there, obviously, but only as an
undistracting background, when the subject very clearly is the heron. And
right away, the odd expression of the bird grabs attention. Good light,
good placement in the frame, simply done with just a few elements. But the
eye goes only to the heron, which is in an unattractive pose with an odd
emotional response, hard to relate to. While not a bad shot
compositionally, it pretty much says "Ack!" to me (Bill the Heron?). A
near-miss.
Martin Djernaes: A nice mountain vista with lovely skies. But the
lighting on the water minimizes its affect and instead draws attention up
away from it. I like the lines of the valley and the trees, so good work at
leading the eye in a particular direction and keeping the photo nicely
balanced - but just not quite towards the chosen subject. The color seems a
bit unreal too, a tad too much cyan, but not so much that it seems altered.
Needs a stronger focal point, but still grabs the eye.
Martin Francis: Everyone needs to try this at least once, it's not
hard to do. In your case, you captured a bizarre shape that seems out of
place with the tiny droplets suspended above. It shows some pretty
significant contortions of the water's surface, and the lighting brings out
the shapes quite well without anything else drawing attention (like
reflections from surroundings). It's not quite compelling enough to make it
a strong showcase photo, but it does give a tangible and atypical 3D shape
and feel. And it does seem to be questing upwards a bit. Interesting!
Rudy Garcia: I just read some comments about 'chiaroscuro' ("Bright
darkness") and this one seems to fit the bill quite well. The contrast
gives an almost twilight feel to it, way out of line with the height of the
sun - faintly reminiscent of an eclipse. Interesting interpretation of the
mandate two ways, and compelling color and contrast. But it's a scenic
without an attention-getter - nice accent, but lacking a focal point. With
the lines of the clouds and the water, I get the impression this would be
stronger shot horizontally with a lot more space to the left, leading away
into the distance.
David Griffiths: I've seen a million of these. So why does this work
so well? This is the first time I've seen one in B&W, and it really adds a
lot to the feel, and the water is completely surrounded by sharp edges, in
more ways that one. Contrasting directions too - the water flows opposite
of the way the lines lead. Good levels throughout. Now, this may just be a
monitor difference, but I seem to see just the faintest hint of coloration,
a brownish/maroon cast, and in this case it works quite well. Something to
experiment with. Good job!
Bob Hickey: Similar to Matt's, this one seems to eschew water
entirely, until you look closely - funny because we know exactly where it
should be, but it's *still* extremely subtle. This is more texture and
emotion than anything else - nice untouched feel to it, and interesting
framing. A good accent, with some more feeling provided by the color cast.
Makes me wonder what the other experiments with color looked like. But
water hardly fits the bill as the subject, despite the setting, so it
misses a little bit in that regard. Good photo, not the best
interpretation.
Lisa Horton: It wook me a few moments to determine where the
cockatiel was, exactly - the tile edge gives more of a clue than the water
does. And like Bret's, the subject is too clearly the bird. Colorful and
compelling in the implied action, it still lacks oomph from an artistic
standpoint. It's also slightly confusing emotionally - I'm not sure whether
the bird is having fun in the water or desperate to get out, since it
doesn't communicate either one very strongly. [And now, a slight aside -
I'm trying not to be biased on a personal level, because the clipped wings
hit me immediately. I don't have anything against wing clipping itself in
any way, and my own birds almost always had theirs done, but the wildlife
part of me says this isn't right, and indeed, it becomes very noticeable
with the stray flight feathers poking out. So I bracketed this because,
while it affects the photo to me, it shouldn't, and doesn't count].
Amber Hutcherson: Less of the depth than Bowser's, but still quite
evident. The color is nice and the light on the pads works well, especially
with the highlights indicating this is a shady cool area. The lack of
sharpness bothers me a little, and it would seem to need a little more
contrast - both potentially just scanning issues. The flower seems just a
bit too centered, though, which is unfortunate because it's a strong focal
point. almost adrift in the channels between the pad clumps. A near miss,
but one that could potentially become much stronger with minor editing.
Carl Hutcherson: Same place? Unfortunately I'm immediately struck by
the non-level horizon - I do this all the time and I hate myself for it. It
works only occasionally, and not in this kind of composition. Contrast in
this one is a bit too high, making it harsher than it should be for the
subject. Maintains just enough emphasis on the water to fit the mandate.
but it still strikes me more of a landscape. There's foreground detail and
the water leads deeper into the image, but it lacks a little. Could be the
grassline in the foreground 'bars' me from getting into the pic, and most
of the rest of it lacks a grabbing detail. Also, maybe my monitor, but just
a tad too magenta?
Nick James: I see the face immediately, the gaping mouth, but it
isn't quite positioned to gulp the boaters. Good or bad? I don't know, but
with it, it would gain a humorous side to it. The inclusion of the boaters
gives an immediate feeling of grand scale, and again, is this good or bad?
Would it have been more interesting trying to get the viewer guessing? I
don't know. The contrast and the texture work very well, foreground and
background, and the depth is readily apparent, enhanced by the boat. Good
interpretation of an atypical scenic opportunity. The dirt in the snow
(glacier?) gives a grittier mood over the frequent pristine crisp whites
that often attract the winter photographer.
Jim Kramer: Having read the circumstances of this photo, I know that
the lack of critical sharpness comes from handholding the camera during the
longer exposure. So while a good effort, it doesn't carry through to the
image. I said before that there are tons of waterfall shots, but this one
is composed in such a way that the viewer actually feels the spray - nice
effect! The textures in the water work well, better than an overall milky
feel would have. Without the leaf, the scale might be really hard to
determine, and I don't know if this is good or bad, but the spot of color
attracts attention without a good reason. Mixed emotions overall.
Simon Lee: Easily my favorite - this is just too cool! A completely
different angle on an oft-photographed subject. Without the tap, it would
be a curious abstract, but with it it becomes captivating - "Is that what
it really looks like?" Moreover, very direct - the only other thing in the
photo is the distant evidence of the tap arm, and this is in a line that
complements anyway. And exceptionally sharp. Excellent! Great photo
overall, great interpretation of the mandate.
Lionel: An interesting mood, with just a hint of danger from the deep
hole almost hidden by the innocuous-looking plants. Nice attempt at the
dual levels of water and subject plane. But the fact that nothing is sharp
in the lower half of the frame pushed my eye upwards where it doesn't quite
belong. The pipe aims down, the hole is there, but nothing to focus on, so
I go instead for the sharp flower and water drops, which are clearly not
the primary subject for the framing. I like the idea, but not quite
executed for that goal.
Vic Mason: Interesting use of lines and direction. Even the horizon
doesn't break the photo, since the direction had turned away from it to go
parallel. The shady chair and the curving sidewalk give a very strong
impression of an inviting pause on the path - literal and metaphorical at
the same time. The post adds a interesting texture, a counterpoint that, to
me, doesn't detract. Nice color, could be a bit more vibrant. Water,
however, only serves to enhance the sidewalk unnecessarily, so while a nice
scenic with hidden meaning, not exactly an interpretation of the mandate.
We're still in the 'M's? Gosh, I wish this went faster...
Gordon Moat: Turbulence, soft and harsh at the same time, bright and
dark together and enhancing the clash. Very textured surface, good shaping,
deep color. But the focal point doesn't have the required sharpness - this
instead goes to the water at upper left, even though the slight indication
of the splash/spray at center almost locks me in. A near-miss of an
evocative subject.
Dennis O'Conner: The lights and the implied road (not exactly
visible) draw attention to the center, but without a firm reason. The water
is subtle, taking a moment to impinge on the viewer - the wiper-path on the
windshield almost escapes attention, even though it's almost instinctive to
assume this was taken from a car. Not a bad mood, but slightly confusing.
I read about the circumstances of this photo, and rated it anyway
from strictly a standpoint of the photo itself. My condolences and
sympathy, and we appreciate the effort to take part despite the events.
Knowing the background, I suspect this may be representative of the overall
mood anyway.
Doug Payne: I'm confused! What is it, how far away, why? It's a
compelling texture, I think mostly just because I look at it and try to
impose some reality on it, somewhere, but it remains completely elusive. I
like the subtle gradient, but can't feel there is any kind of strong
subject in there. Water? If you say so, but I think someone would only
guess at it because we find water to be one of the few things in the world
that creates smooth expanses, especially in that color.
Pete: Ahhh, c'mon Pete, try harder! Yes, it's clearly water, and the
clarity of it with the streambed tells me it's cool and refreshing. The
color's not bad, and a little texture. But no subject, and that distraction
of the pipe, or at least something uncomfortably uniform at bottom. I can't
help but think of what else might have been tried in the same
circumstances.
Rich Pos: I think Rich knows what I like. Just a hair away from
abstract, the gradients provided by the sky and water are beautiful, and
the lines simple and inviting. Slightly disconcerted by being stopped at
the horizon, or the twin horizon as it were, but not unduly so. The unreal
tranquility is fantastic, and a good demonstration of a prime trait of
water, that of achieving perfect smoothness if undisturbed. Alas, the
little things in the foreground attract a lot of attention because of the
overall simplicity of the composition. If just a lone feather, the
emotional aspect would be useful, but not with several little doodads.
Relics: I like the colors and the capture of the sun peeking in
there, but other things take away from this. Most noticeable is that
contrail (more than one, perhaps) and it goes counter to the natural
cloudline as well. The reflective water in foreground also has too little
detail - it's abstract in a way, but I think it's immediately obvious it's
water, just not what or why. The horizon. given emphasis by the sky, is
just a little too plain. Needs just a little more, somewhere.
John Riegle: I've read your comments on the shot already, so I know
how you view it. To me, there's a bit of emphasis on the foreground simply
because of the detail therein, as opposed to the water which has virtually
none. The flat light and dull sky doesn't help the mood. The lines aren't
bad, matching in some ways (the downward curve of three treelines, the
sailboat masts, and the lakeshore), but a bit too subtle to be compelling.
The sailboats don't quite attract attention and are slightly monotonous.
It's too bad, I like the coloration of the gulls, even though many people's
association with them is less-than-positive. Better light and a little bit
different framing might have made a world of difference. And yes, water is
there, but as just a little more than a framing element. The gulls look
every which way, but the two alone at the edge get attention and look
outside the frame - I suspect giving them, or that direction, more emphasis
would be stronger too.
Duncan Ross: Oops, haven't seen this one yet, must have popped in
recently. Ahhh, I won't belabor the point that this is a snapshot, and it
loses any cuteness value because, while I like many rodents, guinea pigs
are simply annoying to me ;-). One of them is even looking away, detracting
from any emotion that eye-contact has. C'mon, try again ;-)
Brent Schneeman: An interesting shot! Just real enough to indicate a
photograph, rather than an impressionistic rendering in one of a hundred
different mediums. The softnes and the muted colors are emotive in their
own way. Loses just a little by making the viewer wonder just how it was
done - what was the reflective, or transmittive, material? I first got the
impression of frosted glass, even though I knew water was involved, so it
seems to lose a bit from being *too* vague, at least as far as the mandate
goes, but potentially in an overall manner too. The windmill does work
pretty well though - one of those subjects, like lighthouses, that don't
quite get 'done to death' despite the number of photos.
Simon Stanmore: A masterful use of lighting and framing, with some
subtle elements lending themselves to the pic, such as the wet hair
indicating the water being more than simply spilling down the chin, but
also providing more emphasis for femininity in this tight portrait. Nicely
framed, with no distractions - except for the specks in front of her mouth.
Not clear enough if this is gargle spray or simply dust - I suspect dust
because of the motion apparent below the chin. I wonder what's happening
here, but I also know that's part of the mystique. Nice portrait that still
carries the mandate well.
Glenn Travis: The near-identical uniformity from left to right, the
perspective, and the complementary colors make this pretty strong. But then
again, am I being unkind when I put this as much to the architect as the
photographer? The right side is slightly more cut off than the left, too.
Nevertheless I like the milky blue and the tunnel of lines leading deep
into the center. A little vague on the mandate, though. I'd be playing
around with numerous different angles on those fountains, myself.
Annnnndddd that's all of them. I'm hungry, and I'm going now. I
caught countless typos in the above, so any I missed should be considered
skilled survivors and given due praise...
- Al.
--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Dallas
Thanks for the comments.
Matt Clara
Doug Payne
> Doug Payne: I'm confused! What is it, how far away, why? It's a
> compelling texture, I think mostly just because I look at it and try to
> impose some reality on it, somewhere, but it remains completely elusive. I
> like the subtle gradient, but can't feel there is any kind of strong
> subject in there. Water? If you say so, but I think someone would only
> guess at it because we find water to be one of the few things in the world
> that creates smooth expanses, especially in that color.
:-) See my previous post. It's all water, half frozen, half not, taken
from maybe 3,000-4,000 feet out the window of a floatplane over a lake
in the Canadian Arctic. I just liked the abstractness of it. I guess it
wasn't obvious enough that it was actually water. It's a lot easier for
me to see the water since I was actually there. And maybe you have to be
a Northerner to see the frozen part for what it is.
Here's another one I was gonna submit; it's a bit less subtle:
Ken Cashion
wrote:
Finally! A critic who knows what he is talking about! :o)
Thanks, Al. I enjoyed reading them all. I think you done
good. On mine, especially. ;o)
Ken
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne: An interesting and monochromatic still-life, where the
> steam just barely makes an appearance. Well done lighting, and two subtle
> pointers to bottom right of the frame - the kettlespout, and the lip of the
> glass. Emphasis on curves and lines. I would rather not see the lip of the
> glass cut off at top, but this is minor. There is some unknown line up
> there going in the opposite direction from the 'pointers', and this catches
> my attention too (but I tend to lock onto those things for some reason).
> Nice simple geometry in an 'everyday' setting, with a compelling single
> color to boot.
Thanks Al,
Hi Al,
You make my comments/critics look like shards of broken glass.
Despite the careful lighting this shot was one of the last few taken at
odd angles. I had to crop on the left and a little on the top. When
taking these shots, I recklessly abandon keeping the objects in
frame...before croppoing, the rim of the glass is barely cropped by the
shot, and here as presented I cropped annother sliver. The lines at top
left are the table edge (a wood and glass breakfast table) which I
confess I didn't see when I was shooting. The color is "mono" of sorts
on the original, but the glass a bit greener. Here I shoved it a bit in
PS to get the steam to sho a little more.
Thanks,
Alan.
Alan Browne
Ken Cashion wrote:
>> Ken Cashion: Okay, first thought was "That ain't water!" And it's a
>>stretch, counting the ice cube. But there's no getting over the fact that
>>it's an evocative image, very very emotional, with everything in frame
>>working together to produce the effect and nothing detracting. The
>>attention goes clearly to the glass from great use of DOF, and from the
>>subtle position of the guy's head, and from the even-more-subtle strongest
>>light hitting the glass. Shows just a hair too much evidence of
>>underexposure. So some points lost on the 'water' part, but very high marks
>>simply as a good photo. Nice job!
>
>
> Finally! A critic who knows what he is talking about! :o)
...watch it!
Simon Stanmore
"Al Denelsbeck" <ne...@wadingin.net> wrote in message
news:Xns940029F38FF22sa...@65.32.1.8...
>
> Simon Stanmore: A masterful use of lighting and framing, with some
> subtle elements lending themselves to the pic, such as the wet hair
> indicating the water being more than simply spilling down the chin, but
> also providing more emphasis for femininity in this tight portrait. Nicely
> framed, with no distractions - except for the specks in front of her
mouth.
> Not clear enough if this is gargle spray or simply dust - I suspect dust
> because of the motion apparent below the chin. I wonder what's happening
> here, but I also know that's part of the mystique. Nice portrait that
still
> carries the mandate well.
Al - This and *all* your other comments are excellent - insightful. A
superb critique job. It's great to see that some people recognise the
intentional 'ambiguity' in my submission. But dust ... DUST!!! Those specks
are pure mandate material sir!
: )
Simon
Martin Djernæs
I realize that if you were to discuss every single picture you would not
be able to do anything else, so if you don't answer I know it's just
because your time is limited and not because youre not helpfull :-)
Al Denelsbeck wrote:
> Martin Djernaes: A nice mountain vista with lovely skies. But the
> lighting on the water minimizes its affect and instead draws attention up
> away from it. I like the lines of the valley and the trees, so good work at
> leading the eye in a particular direction and keeping the photo nicely
> balanced - but just not quite towards the chosen subject. The color seems a
> bit unreal too, a tad too much cyan, but not so much that it seems altered.
> Needs a stronger focal point, but still grabs the eye.
I'm a bit currious to your color comment. I have taked quite a few of
these wather/river/canyon pictures (and like doing so), but I always
feel that they are missing something when I get the film back.
First: the picture is taken just after noon above the Illilouette Falls
in Yosemite NP. I used a tripod, f/32 and 80mm with my Canon kit-lense.
The film was Kodak 100ASA.
Second: I didn't do any color manipulation, but the jpeg is scanned from
the photo (not the negative) with my rather old flatbed scanner.
When I look at the photo (4x6 blank) and compare it to the one at the
monitor I feel that the "shine" or yellow cast have disappeared from the
jpeg. Especially looking at the sun spot in the bottom of the image I
feel that the life/colors are gone. I wonder if this is what you think
about when you say that there is "a tad too much cyan".
I guess I need to learn how to produce a better scanned image :-)
You also talk about a missing focal point. I think I agree with you, but
I'm not sure if I would know what to do :-) In the picture, do you see
anything which could have been used as a focal point? I kind of wanted
the stones in the center as the "heavy" part, but I don't think I really
succeded.
Martin
P.S. The more I compare the real picture and the jpeg the more I feel
that my picture (the jpeg) is really dull.
Ken Cashion
<mar...@djernaes.dk.del> wrote:
<big snip of interesting stuff>
>Martin
>
>P.S. The more I compare the real picture and the jpeg the more I feel
>that my picture (the jpeg) is really dull.
You, too? I don't know how much we may learn about
photography but I bet a bunch of us learn a lot about scanning and
jpgs. :o)
Cheers -- Ken
>
Al Denelsbeck
news:obkcb.45751$9n4.9...@wagner.videotron.net:
> Thanks Al,
And thanks back to you, both for the critiques and for the effort
you're putting into this.
> You make my comments/critics look like shards of broken glass.
I'm not going to agree with this. We have different approaches,
that's all. I think I tend to be more loquacious, though not as much as Ken
(Hi Ken!), and this can be good and bad. One particular aspect where my
approach discourages people, and yours encourages them, is the brevity and
the time involved in giving input. Nobody has to spend as much time at it,
and even brief comments are better than none at all. I might scare people
into thinking they have to write as freaking much as I do :-).
> Despite the careful lighting this shot was one of the last few taken
> at odd angles. I had to crop on the left and a little on the top.
> When taking these shots, I recklessly abandon keeping the objects in
> frame...before croppoing, the rim of the glass is barely cropped by
> the shot, and here as presented I cropped annother sliver. The lines
> at top left are the table edge (a wood and glass breakfast table)
> which I confess I didn't see when I was shooting. The color is "mono"
> of sorts on the original, but the glass a bit greener. Here I shoved
> it a bit in PS to get the steam to sho a little more.
I, myself, tend to be sensitive towards lines in a photo, and shapes
and such, so I fixate on them. Doesn't mean I'm right. If the approach or
cropping is intentional, then it's not 'wrong' in any way, and perhaps
might be done to indicate that the scene is not enclosed by the image
boundaries, but that the image is only a small fragment (just speculation).
Also, the 'mono' comment isn't intended in any negative way, just an
observation. My eye tells me it's full-spectrum, but there is still a
dominant color, and this is an art or approach in its own. And it's a
muted, pleasing color. I need to attempt more shots like this, really.
Cheers!
Al Denelsbeck
news:bks6tg$8hl$1...@tabloid.uwaterloo.ca:
>:-) See my previous post. It's all water, half frozen, half not, taken
> from maybe 3,000-4,000 feet out the window of a floatplane over a lake
> in the Canadian Arctic. I just liked the abstractness of it. I guess
> it wasn't obvious enough that it was actually water. It's a lot easier
> for me to see the water since I was actually there. And maybe you have
> to be a Northerner to see the frozen part for what it is.
>
> Here's another one I was gonna submit; it's a bit less subtle:
>
> http://heron.uwaterloo.ca/~dwpayne/water.jpg
Well, I'm a transplanted northerner, though I can say I saw much
freezing in progress during my flights, so it didn't jump out at me. I
think many of the details that reveal something as 'ice' to us are missing.
Just my take on it.
But I like the other shot, above, much better. Great demo of
extremely simple but effective composition, and my eye goes straight to the
water droplets on the needles that are 'revealed' by the dark background.
The rock is necessary, but not too dominant. Much stronger, IMHO.
Peter Chant
Al Denelsbeck <ne...@wadingin.net> writes:
>
> Okay, abuse fans, I'm taking a little time to sit down and put my
Hang on, is this rec.photo.equipment.s7m?
;-)
>
> Pete: Ahhh, c'mon Pete, try harder! Yes, it's clearly water, and the
> clarity of it with the streambed tells me it's cool and refreshing. The
> color's not bad, and a little texture. But no subject, and that distraction
> of the pipe, or at least something uncomfortably uniform at bottom. I can't
> help but think of what else might have been tried in the same
> circumstances.
Well, to be frank I was not happy with it either. I picked from a fair
number of shots. I chucked out one as too 'postcardy', its subjects
were a bridge and willow tree with the house in the background.
Some seemed ok, not brilliant, but they just did not seem to be
'watery' enough. I wanted this picture to show the ripples of the
surface of the water. Unfortunatly the rather ugly pipe was
necessary to produce them. As for the no subject comment, the ripples
were the subject. I should have had a longer lens and maybe extension
tubes to get the effect. Unfortunately I did not.
As for the try harder, well I got into photography for several reasons.
My compact camera always seemed to either have too short or long a lens,
the pictures were not as sharp as I would like. I did not like
having washed out skys on my photographs. My mum's slides from the
60's still looked fantastic. Furthermore I was tasking photographers
at work (technical photography) and I thought that a grasp of the
subject would not go amiss.
Composition is something I am working on. I think that I have improved
over the years but it is hard be an objective critic of myself.
Peter Chant
pe...@petezilla.co.uk (Peter Chant) writes:
>
> Well, to be frank I was not happy with it either. I picked from a fair
BTW, thanks for the comments.
Doug Payne
>>http://heron.uwaterloo.ca/~dwpayne/water.jpg
>
> But I like the other shot, above, much better. Great demo of
> extremely simple but effective composition, and my eye goes straight to the
> water droplets on the needles that are 'revealed' by the dark background.
> The rock is necessary, but not too dominant. Much stronger, IMHO.
Dang! I *knew* that'd happen. I refrained from submitting that one
because it was shot with a digital P&S, and not the revered "35mm". Of
course I suspect nobody would have known had I not said anything. And I
didn't like the smoke across the lake. Thanks for the comments. Again.
Al Denelsbeck
news:3F71E348...@djernaes.dk.del:
> Hi Al,
>
> I realize that if you were to discuss every single picture you would
> not be able to do anything else, so if you don't answer I know it's
> just because your time is limited and not because youre not helpfull
> :-)
My time goes back and forth. You caught me at a good time ;-)
> I'm a bit currious to your color comment. I have taked quite a few of
> these wather/river/canyon pictures (and like doing so), but I always
> feel that they are missing something when I get the film back.
Besides the fact that film increases contrast, which affects the
colors, some films are better able to capture the colors you like than
others, so first I would experiment a bit, and try out a few different
films, especially in a variety of situations. Also, printing is largely up
to the lab - line enlargers have color corrections that they do
automatically to counteract the orange cast of the negative, and these
corrections can vary not only between labs, but between days as well. A
good lab produces the color you like.
You might also want to shoot slides for a while. Contrast tends to be
higher, but the color is unbeatable, and cannot be messed with by the lab.
Kinda rules out using a flatbed scanner though ;-(.
> When I look at the photo (4x6 blank) and compare it to the one at the
> monitor I feel that the "shine" or yellow cast have disappeared from
> the jpeg. Especially looking at the sun spot in the bottom of the
> image I feel that the life/colors are gone. I wonder if this is what
> you think about when you say that there is "a tad too much cyan".
Don't take color comments too seriously until *everyone* is saying
much the same thing - all monitors are different. But it can't hurt to add
a touch of red (opposite of cyan), or yellow, and see where that leads.
It's sometimes amazing what a tiny tweak will do to color, vibrancy, and
mood.
It's even possible that the mineral content of the water is what's
producing the 'cyan' I see, since the sky doesn't show it to any serious
extent and the rocks look fine. Never been to Yosemite, but if I remember
right, some of the pools and sinkholes show some pretty rich colors, don't
they?
> I guess I need to learn how to produce a better scanned image :-)
Scanners are a serious factor in producing what we want to see, and
I've spent ridiculous amounts of time trying to get images to look 'right'
after scanning. Many have lesser sensitivities to certain colors (so do
many digital cameras). After a while, you might find that some faint
corrections can be done to all scans, and adjust your scanner accordingly
or create a set of actions to routinely do in your photo editing program.
Flatbeds, to me, always seem to increase contrast, too. When they
were all I used, I started scanning too light, lowering the contrast and
saturation and bringing out more shadow detail, then bringing the image
back into control afterwards in an editing program. Seemed to work much
much better.
Now that I use a film scanner, this is different. Negatives are very
hard to scan correctly - the scanner always wants to automatically adjust
exposure and color, and this cannot be shut off in the software! It does
slides ten times better, but unfortunately, slides are too expensive and
time-consuming for the shoot-in (I have to send them out to get proper
service).
> You also talk about a missing focal point. I think I agree with you,
> but I'm not sure if I would know what to do :-) In the picture, do you
> see anything which could have been used as a focal point? I kind of
> wanted the stones in the center as the "heavy" part, but I don't think
> I really succeded.
In some cases, there isn't a focal point that's particularly strong
in a scenic, and you have to decide whether to take the image anyway and
recognize that it doesn't have as much impact, or bypass it in favor of
something stronger.
In this particular case, the lines seem to lead down to the pool, but
the pool is a bit darker than most of the photo and in shade. If you'd
adjusted exposure for the pool, then the sky would probably have gone too
bright and not looked good. So, perhaps, wait for a little while for the
light to change? Return again at a different time? There's a small
turbulent ripple visible at left, can you have gotten closer and used this
as a foreground element? I realize not all options are available at any
time, such as waiting for different light or getting wet, so these are only
suggestions.
Many photographers use a graduated neutral density filter to darken
only the sky while allowing the foreground to remain unaffected, and this
can help with the different light levels between the ground and the sky.
But it's often very noticeable to my eye, and I don't ever use them. Also
hard to do witht he shape of the horizon here. I prefer to wait for more
balanced light.
Another scenic trick, sometimes used too much, is putting a person in
the scene. It provies a focal point, a splash of color, a sense of scale,
and often some emotional response. There's a lot that can be done with
someone else in there. Of course, it means traveling with someone who has
the patience for that ;-).
And midday is a tough time to shoot, especially on sunny days, and
many photographers just avoid it entirely. Contrast jumps beyond the reach
of the film, people squint, colors get washed out. Your shot was pretty
good to be able to use this, most especially to get the color from the sky,
but the contrast is noticeable.
> P.S. The more I compare the real picture and the jpeg the more I feel
> that my picture (the jpeg) is really dull.
While I don't know how it compares to the print, it's not dull. This
isn't to say that a color tweak won't change things, though.
Ah, but where does it cross the line between 'getting the correct
color' and 'digital altering'? Who knows? The best you can try for is using
a white-balance tool from your photo editor, or a neutral gray spot. But
it's a matter of opinion, and not worth worrying about.
Good luck!
Bandicoot
> scattered thoughts to, uh, binary charges I guess, and give my honest,
> forthright, and exceptionally uneducated opinions about this week's
> offerings.
[SNIP]
I wanted to reply to a question implicit in Al's comments on my picture, and
then found myself shamelessly piggy-backing on some (a lot... most...) of
his other comments where I wanted to say something about some of the other
pictures. I'm not managing a 'full critique' this time round, so I've just
added my comments to Al's on 'a few' of the pictures.
> Mike Benveniste: Immediately striking because of the colors, and the
> composition ain't bad at all. Not sure if I like the tiny bit of horizon
> peeking through - mixed feelings on that. The monochrome landscape broken
> by the complementary color of the water makes this very direct, even
though
> it isn't much more than a 'landscape' pic. The tree is a good touch, but
> I'm not sure what the yellow under the waterfall is.
I second the 'not sure about the bit of sky'. I like the picture, and the
fabulous light is captured beautifully, but that little sliver of sky I feel
might have been better left out: it is too small to contribute, so it
distracts instead.
> Peter Boorman (Bandicoot): A confusing image, in a way. Why the
> spring? Seems like a small clash between the industrial or geometrical
> aspect of the metal versus the water drops, bright light, and green
> background, which gives it all a feel of being outdoors in bright sun (and
> great effect on lighting if it isn't!). Stark and direct, and the limited
> depth prevents the viewer from following the path of the spring - instead,
> it's presented in pieces. I'm mixed on this one, not only from the water
> standpoint, but as a geometric presentation.
(Me) Thanks - I am always interested in reactions, and the fact it is
confusing is fine with me! The spring came about because I was looking
round for something that I could get water drops to 'stick' to and it came
to hand, then I thought "Spring - Water" so there is a visual pun as well:
it doesn't matter if you 'get' the pun or not, but I like it as a little
tease for those who do.
The contrast of wet/soft and dry/hard was what I wanted to get, hence hard
light but soft background. I thought about one with enough DoF to keep the
whole of the spring sharp, but decided I didn't like it as much - for me the
eye became _too_ prone to follow the spring at the expense of the overall
picture.
For all that, while I'm quite pleased with it, and am happy with the
slightly 'uncomfortable' feeling it conveys, I do think I could have done
better if I'd spent more time on it - I wasn't getting paid for it, couldn't
see any likely 'other' use for the shot, and wanted to get out into that
nice sunshine you can see!
It was done indoors, but using daylight - both direct and reflected. The
little upside-down world half seen through the two larger water droplets is
my front garden.
>
> Bowser: At first glance, I said "Just lily pads". Granted, the
> biggest single expanse I've ever seen, but just pads. However, even with
> the monotonous pattern, there are compositional elements at work - the
> color from the skyline which does not directly show at all in the pic, the
> placement of the grasses in the frame, and the depth which takes the
> speckling at the top of the picture and renders it into detailed pads at
> the bottom. Interesting! Actually draws more attention than it seems like
> it should. For those learning how to compose, notice the arc of the
skyline
> centered, the grasses which aren't, and how the grasses do not break the
> lines. Also, a distinct avoidance of the Rule of Thirds which nevertheless
> works - a good example of following guidelines only up to a point.
I really liked this one too - this sort of picture is much harder to do well
than at first appears, and this one succeeds.
[SNIP]
>
> Ken Cashion: Okay, first thought was "That ain't water!" And it's a
> stretch, counting the ice cube. But there's no getting over the fact that
> it's an evocative image, very very emotional, with everything in frame
> working together to produce the effect and nothing detracting. The
> attention goes clearly to the glass from great use of DOF, and from the
> subtle position of the guy's head, and from the even-more-subtle strongest
> light hitting the glass. Shows just a hair too much evidence of
> underexposure. So some points lost on the 'water' part, but very high
marks
> simply as a good photo. Nice job!
Another I like - the slight underexposure works for me, as the increased
grain and blocked up shadows seem to work with the atmosphere of the image.
The choice of focus point and the amount of DoF are just right.
[SNIP]
>
> Dallas Dahms: A good, simple, but curiously compelling image. From
> the distinct detail of the water edge and clinging droplets, to the
> specular highlights so far out of focus. And again, another monochromatic
> shot in color - lot of them this time. I can't pin down why this works so
> well. And often, the hexagonal rendering of the highlights could be
> distracting, but here they're part of the composition and the geometry
> seems to counterpoint the randomness of the natural water, with that red
> light thrown in for emphasis. Hard to say why, but it works for me.
Yes, the geometry is very powerful - I like pictures that are not wholly
non-representational, in that we do know at least part of what it is a
pictore 'of' - but that primarily work as abstracts nonetheless. Looks like
the sort of picture beloved of company annual reports...
>
> Mine: I wanted the colors, I wanted the light. The one I was trying
> for didn't come out acceptably. That's all I'm going to say. But am I the
> only one that sees the "jh" in there? Anyone with those initials wanna buy
> it?
I see the JH - now let's see you do other sets of initials to order!...
>
> Bret Douglas: Water is in there, obviously, but only as an
> undistracting background, when the subject very clearly is the heron. And
> right away, the odd expression of the bird grabs attention. Good light,
> good placement in the frame, simply done with just a few elements. But the
> eye goes only to the heron, which is in an unattractive pose with an odd
> emotional response, hard to relate to. While not a bad shot
> compositionally, it pretty much says "Ack!" to me (Bill the Heron?). A
> near-miss.
Good picture of the Heron, but I find the rocks he is standing on detract -
the pale one bottom right is distracting, and overall the piece of rock
seems too small for the image as a whole, unbalancing the composition. Of
course, this may be all there was, but that's the luck of the draw.
[SNIP]
>
> David Griffiths: I've seen a million of these. So why does this work
> so well? This is the first time I've seen one in B&W, and it really adds a
> lot to the feel, and the water is completely surrounded by sharp edges, in
> more ways that one. Contrasting directions too - the water flows opposite
> of the way the lines lead. Good levels throughout. Now, this may just be a
> monitor difference, but I seem to see just the faintest hint of
coloration,
> a brownish/maroon cast, and in this case it works quite well. Something to
> experiment with. Good job!
Yeah, what Al said. One sees this so often that it can become very hard for
such a shot to stand out, and this does succeed in being attention grabbing.
The B&W IR effect suits the subject, and while I agree with others' comments
about the branches, the overall effect is strong enough to live with that.
If you found another waterfall with an even better viewpoint available it
would be well worth trying this again - it works.
>
> Bob Hickey: Similar to Matt's, this one seems to eschew water
> entirely, until you look closely - funny because we know exactly where it
> should be, but it's *still* extremely subtle. This is more texture and
> emotion than anything else - nice untouched feel to it, and interesting
> framing. A good accent, with some more feeling provided by the color cast.
> Makes me wonder what the other experiments with color looked like. But
> water hardly fits the bill as the subject, despite the setting, so it
> misses a little bit in that regard. Good photo, not the best
> interpretation.
I really like this one. The framing is tighter, and the angle of view
narrower than the stereotypical approach to such a subject and this makes it
all the more striking. The toning suits it well too.
>
> Lisa Horton: It wook me a few moments to determine where the
> cockatiel was, exactly - the tile edge gives more of a clue than the water
> does. And like Bret's, the subject is too clearly the bird. Colorful and
> compelling in the implied action, it still lacks oomph from an artistic
> standpoint. It's also slightly confusing emotionally - I'm not sure
whether
> the bird is having fun in the water or desperate to get out, since it
> doesn't communicate either one very strongly. [And now, a slight aside -
> I'm trying not to be biased on a personal level, because the clipped wings
> hit me immediately. I don't have anything against wing clipping itself in
> any way, and my own birds almost always had theirs done, but the wildlife
> part of me says this isn't right, and indeed, it becomes very noticeable
> with the stray flight feathers poking out. So I bracketed this because,
> while it affects the photo to me, it shouldn't, and doesn't count].
I agree with Al that one can't really tell whether the bird is having fun or
not - but to be unrealistically anthropomorphic about it, he really does
look as if he is smiling, which makes it seem a very cheerful picture.
Ideally I could wish his feet weren't cut off, and that his tail was all in
rather than disappearing into the blurred shape (Lisa's hand?) bottom
right - but with this sort of shot, capturing the moment takes precedence
over the sort of framing considerations that can apply in a more static
(read 'less interesting') picture. It just makes me smile.
[Makes me smile too, Damson.] <= For Lisa's benefit, I should add that
while my cat Damson likes watching birds, she never actually chases them:
far too lazy, and they know it.
>
> Amber Hutcherson: Less of the depth than Bowser's, but still quite
> evident. The color is nice and the light on the pads works well,
especially
> with the highlights indicating this is a shady cool area. The lack of
> sharpness bothers me a little, and it would seem to need a little more
> contrast - both potentially just scanning issues. The flower seems just a
> bit too centered, though, which is unfortunate because it's a strong focal
> point. almost adrift in the channels between the pad clumps. A near miss,
> but one that could potentially become much stronger with minor editing.
Yes - experimenting with cropping this a little differently would be well
worthwhile: the pattern of lily pads, open water, and the flower is very
pleasing, and just getting it into the right relationship with the frame of
the picture itself could make a much stronger picture.
>
> Carl Hutcherson: Same place? Unfortunately I'm immediately struck by
> the non-level horizon - I do this all the time and I hate myself for it.
It
> works only occasionally, and not in this kind of composition. Contrast in
> this one is a bit too high, making it harsher than it should be for the
> subject. Maintains just enough emphasis on the water to fit the mandate.
> but it still strikes me more of a landscape. There's foreground detail and
> the water leads deeper into the image, but it lacks a little. Could be the
> grassline in the foreground 'bars' me from getting into the pic, and most
> of the rest of it lacks a grabbing detail. Also, maybe my monitor, but
just
> a tad too magenta?
If it is Al's monitor, it is mine too - but such a cast is correctable. The
tilted horizon also bothers me, and this is always most apparent whenever
there is water in a shot, but cropping could correct this, and by losing
some of the foreground at the same time the picture could easily lead the
eye in a little more.
>
> Nick James: I see the face immediately, the gaping mouth, but it
> isn't quite positioned to gulp the boaters. Good or bad? I don't know, but
> with it, it would gain a humorous side to it. The inclusion of the boaters
> gives an immediate feeling of grand scale, and again, is this good or bad?
> Would it have been more interesting trying to get the viewer guessing? I
> don't know. The contrast and the texture work very well, foreground and
> background, and the depth is readily apparent, enhanced by the boat. Good
> interpretation of an atypical scenic opportunity. The dirt in the snow
> (glacier?) gives a grittier mood over the frequent pristine crisp whites
> that often attract the winter photographer.
I didn't see the face till Al mentioned it, but of course now it jumps out
at me. I liked it better before I saw the face! But like it I do - the
balance of glacier to open space is not conventional, and the grittiness
adds to the extent to which this is different from the shot one might
'expect' to see of such a subject. And that makes it interesting. It
helps, of course, that it is a difficult exposure, made exactly right.
[SNIP]
> Simon Lee: Easily my favorite - this is just too cool! A completely
> different angle on an oft-photographed subject. Without the tap, it would
> be a curious abstract, but with it it becomes captivating - "Is that what
> it really looks like?" Moreover, very direct - the only other thing in the
> photo is the distant evidence of the tap arm, and this is in a line that
> complements anyway. And exceptionally sharp. Excellent! Great photo
> overall, great interpretation of the mandate.
Everyone likes this - me included. I like the inclusion of the spout of the
tap and the shape of it arcing away in the background. Without these it
would be a beautiful abstract, but with them we know what it is, and have
the extra pleasure we get from 'seeing' the beauty that was previously
hidden inside something we are all familiar with. This is the same
sensation that some electron microscope images provide: revealing the hidden
beauty of the everyday.
[SNIP]
>
> Doug Payne: I'm confused! What is it, how far away, why? It's a
> compelling texture, I think mostly just because I look at it and try to
> impose some reality on it, somewhere, but it remains completely elusive. I
> like the subtle gradient, but can't feel there is any kind of strong
> subject in there. Water? If you say so, but I think someone would only
> guess at it because we find water to be one of the few things in the world
> that creates smooth expanses, especially in that color.
Not immediately obvious what it is, but a pleasing composition. Now that we
all know what it is, and how it was taken, the picture gains 'meaning' and
gives us the interest of asking ourselves such questions as "why is the ice
so dirty?" Given the circumstances, getting such a pleasing composition and
framing was an achievement.
[SNIP]
>
> Rich Pos: I think Rich knows what I like. Just a hair away from
> abstract, the gradients provided by the sky and water are beautiful, and
> the lines simple and inviting. Slightly disconcerted by being stopped at
> the horizon, or the twin horizon as it were, but not unduly so. The unreal
> tranquility is fantastic, and a good demonstration of a prime trait of
> water, that of achieving perfect smoothness if undisturbed. Alas, the
> little things in the foreground attract a lot of attention because of the
> overall simplicity of the composition. If just a lone feather, the
> emotional aspect would be useful, but not with several little doodads.
Wonderful sense of tranquility. I now what Al means about the objects in
the foreground, but I can live with them. The gradation of colour in the
foreground stretch of water gives this image a lot of its power.
[SNIP]
>
> John Riegle: I've read your comments on the shot already, so I know
> how you view it. To me, there's a bit of emphasis on the foreground simply
> because of the detail therein, as opposed to the water which has virtually
> none. The flat light and dull sky doesn't help the mood. The lines aren't
> bad, matching in some ways (the downward curve of three treelines, the
> sailboat masts, and the lakeshore), but a bit too subtle to be compelling.
> The sailboats don't quite attract attention and are slightly monotonous.
> It's too bad, I like the coloration of the gulls, even though many
people's
> association with them is less-than-positive. Better light and a little bit
> different framing might have made a world of difference. And yes, water is
> there, but as just a little more than a framing element. The gulls look
> every which way, but the two alone at the edge get attention and look
> outside the frame - I suspect giving them, or that direction, more
emphasis
> would be stronger too.
Those two looking out of the frame are strong together, it really would help
to have some space for them to be 'looking into'.
>
> Duncan Ross: Oops, haven't seen this one yet, must have popped in
> recently. Ahhh, I won't belabor the point that this is a snapshot, and it
> loses any cuteness value because, while I like many rodents, guinea pigs
> are simply annoying to me ;-). One of them is even looking away,
detracting
> from any emotion that eye-contact has. C'mon, try again ;-)
Snapshot yes, but a cute one and within its terms of reference it can't
really be faulted: the lighting - bounced around in the basin - is perfect.
Hey, Al, don't be annoyed - Guinea Pigs are delicious...
>
> Brent Schneeman: An interesting shot! Just real enough to indicate a
> photograph, rather than an impressionistic rendering in one of a hundred
> different mediums. The softnes and the muted colors are emotive in their
> own way. Loses just a little by making the viewer wonder just how it was
> done - what was the reflective, or transmittive, material? I first got the
> impression of frosted glass, even though I knew water was involved, so it
> seems to lose a bit from being *too* vague, at least as far as the mandate
> goes, but potentially in an overall manner too. The windmill does work
> pretty well though - one of those subjects, like lighthouses, that don't
> quite get 'done to death' despite the number of photos.
I had thought this was taken through a rain streaked window till Brent
posted to say it was a reflection. Either way I like it: it sums up a
feeling about weather and is 'impressionistic' in the correct sense of the
word.
>
> Simon Stanmore: A masterful use of lighting and framing, with some
> subtle elements lending themselves to the pic, such as the wet hair
> indicating the water being more than simply spilling down the chin, but
> also providing more emphasis for femininity in this tight portrait. Nicely
> framed, with no distractions - except for the specks in front of her
mouth.
> Not clear enough if this is gargle spray or simply dust - I suspect dust
> because of the motion apparent below the chin. I wonder what's happening
> here, but I also know that's part of the mystique. Nice portrait that
still
> carries the mandate well.
Very classy execution. Perhaps a little dust spotting is needed, and if
this were a commercial shot the teeth would be artificially whitened in
PhotoShop - but as it is in part a portrait, and not an advert for mineral
water, this is not necessary or even desirable here. Truly excellent
lighting, and the length of exposure gives a pleasing amount of
blur/sharpness to the water drops. Some of the drops appear doubled though,
which is just a _tiny_ bit disconcerting.
>
> Glenn Travis: The near-identical uniformity from left to right, the
> perspective, and the complementary colors make this pretty strong. But
then
> again, am I being unkind when I put this as much to the architect as the
> photographer? The right side is slightly more cut off than the left, too.
> Nevertheless I like the milky blue and the tunnel of lines leading deep
> into the center. A little vague on the mandate, though. I'd be playing
> around with numerous different angles on those fountains, myself.
As Al says, perhaps for a shot emphasising the symmetry it needs to be
_exactly_ centred, or else clearly off-centre - but the off-centredness of
this is not going to be noticed at all by 99% of viewers. What is strong
here is the perfect exposure. A little earlier in the evening so there was
a hint of colour in the sky might have been attractive - but the coloured
lighting of the ountains might have looked less strong if this were done, so
you pays yer money and takes yer choice. If the architect had commissioned
it, s/he would certainly have been pleased.
>
> Annnnndddd that's all of them. I'm hungry, and I'm going now. I
> caught countless typos in the above, so any I missed should be considered
> skilled survivors and given due praise...
>
Me too. I set out to comment on only a few and ended up with a little to
say about most of them. If I skipped yours, don't think it is because I
wasn't interested, it is just because Al or others had already said all that
I might have had to say on that particular shot.
Now, time to put the kettle on...
Peter
Rich Pos
Once again, your comments are educational and inspiring.
Thanks.
RP©
Martin Djernæs
Ken Cashion wrote:
>>P.S. The more I compare the real picture and the jpeg the more I feel
>>that my picture (the jpeg) is really dull.
>
> You, too? I don't know how much we may learn about
> photography but I bet a bunch of us learn a lot about scanning and
> jpgs. :o)
Let's hope that someone feel pity with us and give us their secret
recipe ;-)
Martin
Martin Djernæs
Al Denelsbeck wrote:
> My time goes back and forth. You caught me at a good time ;-)
I must have caught you at a really convenient time. Thanks for all your
comments. I have read them, played a bit with colors in PS and compared
to the original again, but I will try to take more time to review the
picture in the light of your comments. They have already, and will
still, help me understand the aspects of the photo.
> Never been to Yosemite, but if I remember
> right, some of the pools and sinkholes show some pretty rich colors, don't
> they?
I think so. This one is probably not the most colorfull of them all, but
I do think the wather have a clear, but almost metallic color.
> In this particular case, the lines seem to lead down to the pool, but
> the pool is a bit darker than most of the photo and in shade. If you'd
> adjusted exposure for the pool, then the sky would probably have gone too
> bright and not looked good. So, perhaps, wait for a little while for the
> light to change? Return again at a different time? There's a small
> turbulent ripple visible at left, can you have gotten closer and used this
> as a foreground element? I realize not all options are available at any
> time, such as waiting for different light or getting wet, so these are only
> suggestions.
I could have waited a bit, but I knew that I had to get down again ;-)
Comming again later was at least not possible (that day) as it took me
almost 3 hours to get there and as long to get down again.
> Another scenic trick, sometimes used too much, is putting a person in
> the scene. It provies a focal point, a splash of color, a sense of scale,
> and often some emotional response. There's a lot that can be done with
> someone else in there. Of course, it means traveling with someone who has
> the patience for that ;-).
My wife do have plenty of patience with me, and I did take some pictures
with her, but I really don't like nature pictures with people (and yes
it was meant as a nature picture ... with wather).
Thanks again Al .. I really appreciate the help. I'm not sure that I
have digested it all yet, but at least I can keep it for later and try
again ;-)
Martin
Ken Cashion
Martin, some nice people have been posting me about this very
thing. This is a good helpful group of folks here. But I won't tell
you who they are because then you might know, too. :o)
Cheers -- Ken
Martin Djernæs
Ken Cashion wrote:
> Martin, some nice people have been posting me about this very
> thing. This is a good helpful group of folks here. But I won't tell
> you who they are because then you might know, too. :o)
Well in that case I'll just hang around and see what you're doing to
your pictures ;-)))
Martin
Michael Benveniste
<"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:
>> Mike Benveniste: Immediately striking because of the colors, and the
>> composition ain't bad at all. Not sure if I like the tiny bit of horizon
>> peeking through - mixed feelings on that. The monochrome landscape broken
>> by the complementary color of the water makes this very direct, even
>> though it isn't much more than a 'landscape' pic. The tree is a good touch,
>> but I'm not sure what the yellow under the waterfall is.
>
>I second the 'not sure about the bit of sky'. I like the picture, and the
>fabulous light is captured beautifully, but that little sliver of sky I feel
>might have been better left out: it is too small to contribute, so it
>distracts instead.
Thanks for both of your comments. IIRC, I ended up with the bit of
sky trying to get all of that tree. If I decide to work with the pic
some, I'll take a little off the top.
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-...@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
leicaddict
> around with numerous different angles on those fountains, myself.
>
> Annnnndddd that's all of them. I'm hungry, and I'm going now. I
> caught countless typos in the above, so any I missed should be considered
> skilled survivors and given due praise...
>
>
> - Al.
You would be playing with something Al, no doubt that's the past time
of a wanker. But the truth is that a hack like you is just not a
skilled enough photographer to capture the shot I did, let alone the
brillant exposure. Trocadrao, Paris, 1.1.02, very early AM. Leitz M6,
Elmar-M 50mm/f2.8, f2.8 @1/8, handheld.
Peter Chant
leica...@hotmail.com (leicaddict) writes:
>
> You would be playing with something Al, no doubt that's the past time
> of a wanker. But the truth is that a hack like you is just not a
> skilled enough photographer to capture the shot I did, let alone the
> brillant exposure. Trocadrao, Paris, 1.1.02, very early AM. Leitz M6,
> Elmar-M 50mm/f2.8, f2.8 @1/8, handheld.
Am I guessing you did not like the critique?
Al Denelsbeck
> In article <2844ee43.03092...@posting.google.com>,
> leica...@hotmail.com (leicaddict) writes:
>>
>> You would be playing with something Al, no doubt that's the past time
>> of a wanker. But the truth is that a hack like you is just not a
>> skilled enough photographer to capture the shot I did, let alone the
>> brillant exposure. Trocadrao, Paris, 1.1.02, very early AM. Leitz M6,
>> Elmar-M 50mm/f2.8, f2.8 @1/8, handheld.
>
> Am I guessing you did not like the critique?
Would appear that way, wouldn't it? I suppose it's a shame I
killfiled him long ago, I suspect because this is pretty much the only
thing he's capable of saying.
Not my turn for the mandate yet... ;-)
Al Denelsbeck
news:106442402...@despina.uk.clara.net:
Heh! My apologies, in all seriousness. Comparing them to the apparent
movement of the trickle of water under her chin, I felt they were too sharp
to be spraying water. And at the same time, I should have realized that any
dust specks that obvious would have been spotted immediately and never made
it to the final version. It was late...
I appreciate your compliments, and I found the explanation of your
approach in getting the shot to be much more interesting than you
suspected. I think a lot of people starting out believe that some great
images are just instantly made, and never know how much effort goes into
them. And I'm mildly ashamed I missed the gold reflector, since I had
noticed the sheen of the skin ;-)
As for pointing out the wet hair, I think everyone notices it, but
not necessarily in a conscious way, or realizes that without it some of the
atmosphere is gone. It's subtle touches like this that can make or break a
portrait.
You're also lucky to have someone handy who's willing to experiment a
bit for the sake of a good shot. Or maybe it's not luck; but in any event,
try not to spoil it!
Have fun!
Al Denelsbeck
news:jUAcb.3066$5z....@twister.socal.rr.com:
> Congratulations Al. You passed the test. You were the first to divine
> that I surreptitiously chose to present an image with hidden meaning,
> albeit thinly disguised as some kind of water-mandated shot. :)
> Thanks for the comments.
Ah! Two minor mysteries solved! The difference between the posting
addresses and the names displayed at the shoot-in makes me wonder,
sometimes, who's who. There's still a couple I haven't pinned down yet.
I like symbolism and metaphors in photography, something I don't
pursue much myself, and should. Artists working in purely creative media
(painting, sketching, etc.) use it all the time, but photographers have to
find it, or induce it. So when I hear of painters and such denigrating
photography, I can't help but feel it's short-sighted.
There would be a nice mandate: metaphors. Anyone listening? I'm way
down at the bottom of the list, and I think I've already got my mandate
chosen anyway...
Cheers!
Lionel
Martin Djernæs <mar...@djernaes.dk.del> said:
>Ken Cashion wrote:
>> You, too? I don't know how much we may learn about
>> photography but I bet a bunch of us learn a lot about scanning and
>> jpgs. :o)
>
>Let's hope that someone feel pity with us and give us their secret
>recipe ;-)
Well, I'm very experienced at optimising JPEG image quality vs file
size, so you're welcome to ask for advice.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Djernæs
Lionel wrote:
>>Let's hope that someone feel pity with us and give us their secret
>>recipe ;-)
>
> Well, I'm very experienced at optimising JPEG image quality vs file
> size, so you're welcome to ask for advice.
OK - It's your own fault then ;-)
I don't think this is the best image to start learning from and I can
not show you the "original" (non jpeg) image, but anyway try look at my
shootin picture:
http://www.pbase.com/image/21527571
What I notice the most when I compare this picture, which I scanned from
the 4x6 made by my 1h shop at 300dpi with a Canon flatbed scanner, is
that this picture is "colder". Take for example the sunny area in the
bottom of the picture .. the place where there are some red/orange
colored lines in the rock. On the original this is rager bright and
lively .. here I more feel like it's dull and borring. Do you understand?
Any idea how I get this back to "normal"? Al suggested to add red or
yellow and it does look like it helps, but I do not feel that I can
match the real life just by adding these colors .. somehow that also
look fake.
Martin
Leicaddict
important than he is. Of course he's killfiled me, he can't handle the
truth. As far as the critique goes, one way or the other why would I care? I
consider Al a Moron.
--
Leicaddict
"Peter Chant" <pe...@petezilla.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bl20uu$cdf$1...@phoenix.fire...
Alan Browne
Leicaddict wrote:
> A mediocre talent trying to make himself (along with Alan) seem more
> important than he is. Of course he's killfiled me, he can't handle the
> truth. As far as the critique goes, one way or the other why would I care? I
> consider Al a Moron.
>
Glenn,
You really need help with your inferiority complex. Can't wait to see
your next shoot-in contribution ... can you do better than the last one?
Cheers,
Alan.
Simon Stanmore
>
> Heh! My apologies, in all seriousness. Comparing them to the apparent
> movement of the trickle of water under her chin, I felt they were too
sharp
> to be spraying water. And at the same time, I should have realized that
any
> dust specks that obvious would have been spotted immediately and never
made
> it to the final version. It was late...
> I appreciate your compliments, and I found the explanation of your
> approach in getting the shot to be much more interesting than you
> suspected. I think a lot of people starting out believe that some great
> images are just instantly made, and never know how much effort goes into
> them. And I'm mildly ashamed I missed the gold reflector, since I had
> noticed the sheen of the skin ;-)
Yep - The reflector added a nice light 'effect' where the water ran across
skin. It's very visible around the mouth and chin in this shot. I suppose
it's only quite obvious once you know a refelctor was used.
> As for pointing out the wet hair, I think everyone notices it, but
> not necessarily in a conscious way, or realizes that without it some of
the
> atmosphere is gone. It's subtle touches like this that can make or break a
> portrait.
The hair was one of those things that made the shot stand out from the
others once the images were being edited down to a submission on the PC. I
don't think I realised just how important it would be when I was shooting.
> You're also lucky to have someone handy who's willing to experiment a
> bit for the sake of a good shot. Or maybe it's not luck; but in any event,
> try not to spoil it!
>
> Have fun!
>
>
> - Al.
No worries there - since I became 'obsessed' with photography about seven
years back Sonja has always been my model of choice!
Simon
Annika1980
>A mediocre talent trying to make himself (along with Alan) seem more
>important than he is. Of course he's killfiled me, he can't handle the
>truth. As far as the critique goes, one way or the other why would I care? I
>consider Al a Moron.
Is it just me or does Leicaddict sound like a whiney little girl?
Hey Glenn, how about honoring us with some critique of your own since you don't
think Al is qualified to do so.
Annika1980
>You would be playing with something Al, no doubt that's the past time
>of a wanker. But the truth is that a hack like you is just not a
>skilled enough photographer to capture the shot I did, let alone the
>brillant exposure. Trocadrao, Paris, 1.1.02, very early AM. Leitz M6,
>Elmar-M 50mm/f2.8, f2.8 @1/8, handheld.
You wasted a lot of cash for a shot that I could've taken in my sleep with my
$80 50mm f/1.8. I saw nothing brilliant in either the composition or the
exposure of your Water submission. Here's hoping that your next entry will be
better as this week's theme is kinda right up your alley.
Leicaddict
--
Leicaddict
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030926205548...@mb-m04.aol.com...
Leicaddict
Paris, over New Years Eve. You've never been to Paris, and you sure as hell
will never be there over New Year's. I have been, in fact twice last year
since the fares are so cheap, and that's what's important. Oh, but that's
the other thing isn't it? None of you live within thirty minutes of Newark
Airport, so you've got to pay and arm and a leg to go to Paris. Now what'd
are you going to tell me IT, that you'd rather shoot spirders in your back
yard? How pathetic! HAHA! e-mail me off line if you want my travel agent.
--
Leicaddict
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030926205902...@mb-m04.aol.com...
Annika1980
>But what do I care what you do with your little Canon? I took this shot in
>Paris, over New Years Eve. You've never been to Paris, and you sure as hell
>will never be there over New Year's. I have been, in fact twice last year
It must really be a bummer to be in Paris and to suck at photography, huh?
That's the solution .... you can't get any decent pics where you live, so go to
Paris!
My spiders and hornets in my yard are more interesting.
Peter Chant
So Annika's a moron, but a moron who is having a very good time.
Leicaddict
--
Leicaddict
"Peter Chant" <pe...@petezilla.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bl3n7m$r11$1...@phoenix.fire...
Steve Kramer
>
> But what do I care what you do with your little Canon? I took this shot in
> Paris, over New Years Eve. You've never been to Paris, and you sure as hell
> will never be there over New Year's. I have been, in fact twice last year
Far out! Does Paris have two New Years every year? I've only been there
a couple of times myself, and never on one of their New Years, but I
will certainly plan to try it some day.
> None of you live within thirty minutes of Newark
> Airport, so you've got to pay and arm and a leg to go to Paris.
Hmmmm.... and all this time I thought you LIVED in Paris. You just visit
for a few days, huh? Golly, I wish I lived closer to the airport so I
could hear the jets landing and taking off too. You sure are a lucky
guy. And you get to travel to exotic countries as well. That is
fantastic! The Parisians spend their vacations coming to the Orient, and
leave you to travel the three hours to the place they get out of!
Somehow that seems to me that you are getting the short end of the
stick. (Though not if you get to have two New Year's Eves.) Maybe you
should follow them instead. But then, to get to the Orient from greater
metropolitan Newark would cost more than getting to gay Paree, wouldn't
it. And according to you, that's what counts...
> are you going to tell me, that you'd rather shoot spirders in your back
> yard? How pathetic!
Not me!! I like shooting elephants in my back yard. Or King Cobras. None
of them little yucky spirders (spirders?) for me! If I really want to go
exotic, I travel an entire block and photography the farmers plowing
their rice fields using water buffalos. One of them tried using a plow
instead, but it ruined the photo's ambiance.
Steve Kramer
Chiang Mai, Thailand
http://www.photoenvisions.com
--
"The voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new horizons,
but in seeing with new eyes." - Marcel Proust
Lionel
Martin Djernæs <mar...@djernaes.dk.del> said:
>Hi Lionel,
[...]
>What I notice the most when I compare this picture, which I scanned from
>the 4x6 made by my 1h shop at 300dpi with a Canon flatbed scanner, is
>that this picture is "colder". Take for example the sunny area in the
>bottom of the picture .. the place where there are some red/orange
>colored lines in the rock. On the original this is rager bright and
>lively .. here I more feel like it's dull and borring. Do you understand?
Yep. Looking at your shot with the 'levels' function in Photoshop, I
noticed that the red channel histogram is very bottom-heavy, which
implies to me that (assuming you weren't doing some odd filtering) your
scanner isn't picking up the reds as well as it should. I compensated
with 'levels', by moving the red channel midtone slider a little to the
left, to give the reds a little bit of a lift, then converted the shot
to LAB mode & tweaked the luminance levels to give the entire image
better contrast. The result is (inevitably) somewhat posterised, due to
starting with a 8 bit JPEG image, but I think it'll give an idea of what
I've done: <http://lo.ve.ly/shoot-in/Water_Martin_Djernaes_compa.jpg>
While I have no idea what the actual scene looked like, I'm betting that
it looked more like the modified version than the original.
Martin Djernæs
Thanks for helping me .. you can download the tif file here
http://www.djernaes.dk/misc/pict-2003f20-24.html (3.6mb) .. if you are
interested.
Lionel wrote:
>>What I notice the most when I compare this picture, which I scanned from
>>the 4x6 made by my 1h shop at 300dpi with a Canon flatbed scanner, is
>>that this picture is "colder". Take for example the sunny area in the
>>bottom of the picture .. the place where there are some red/orange
>>colored lines in the rock. On the original this is rager bright and
>>lively .. here I more feel like it's dull and borring. Do you understand?
>
> Yep. Looking at your shot with the 'levels' function in Photoshop, I
> noticed that the red channel histogram is very bottom-heavy, which
> implies to me that (assuming you weren't doing some odd filtering) your
> scanner isn't picking up the reds as well as it should. I compensated
> with 'levels', by moving the red channel midtone slider a little to the
> left, to give the reds a little bit of a lift, then converted the shot
> to LAB mode & tweaked the luminance levels to give the entire image
> better contrast. The result is (inevitably) somewhat posterised, due to
> starting with a 8 bit JPEG image, but I think it'll give an idea of what
> I've done: <http://lo.ve.ly/shoot-in/Water_Martin_Djernaes_compa.jpg>
> While I have no idea what the actual scene looked like, I'm betting that
> it looked more like the modified version than the original.
Hmm .. yes it does lift the image, but I feel that the original is
somewhere in between ;-)
I somehow still fail to see what I can do to correct the image .. I was
trying not to modify the red channel and just adjusting the light level,
because I feel that your example is a bit too red, when it occurred to
me that it's actually more like someone put a milky shade over the image.
In your modified version it's especially like the trees are dry. In the
original image they have a very fresh green color.
In my scanned image it's like there isn't enough detail in the trees in
the right side (A) as well as it's like there should be more contrast
between the tree trunks and the green at the upper-left corner (B).
Adding the sharpen filter once gave me some of the lost detail in these
two areas, but the bushes to the left (C) and right (D) still need some
more "life" (or color). I added brighten (+5) and sharpen (+5) to the
image and it did add a bit of the details, but I still feel that it's
not quite enough. It was also like the foreground (E) was a bit too
"cold", which I could improove (a bit) by modifying the Color Levels of
the blue chanel, in RGB mode, to "0 - 240".
What do you think (without having the original image avalible)?
Martin