[SI] Still life - Alan's comments
Alan Browne
Before cutting into it, a comment about what a "Still Life" is: A still
life is composed, and limited to, a composition of inanimate objects.
Flowers, fruit, bolts of cloth, table settings and so on being a very
few examples.
Onward...
Bandicoot
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268471
This is a great still life and wonderful study of light and contrast.
Very thoughtfully done. It gives me the impression that it is layered
from the floor up with light being the paintbrush and the dried flowers
and pots the canvas. The dead black background at top is perfect for
this composition. The only negative, though that's a strong word, is
the stem of the flower from the smaller pot being on such a strong angle
relative to the rest. OTOH, it places the flower head nicely resulting
in a 'triplet' of circles described by the flower shapes. I really like
this image and the thought that went into making it.
Mimi Weber
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268490
One of the more fun images in this collection. The three predominant
monkey heads all seem to have a common point of interest. The patterns
of the heads and the diagonal lines they make in the image all add a lot
of strenght to it. Focus seems to be on the third monkey in the front
row, but the out-of-focus look elsewhere has a "camera shake" look to it
as opposed to an oof look. The ligting appears to be unadjusted
tungsten which yellows the image a lot. No opinion as to if this is bad
or not though... A strong image overall that a little more technical
work (tripod/bounced flash perhaps) may have made stronger.
Mark Lauter
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268491
A colorful image but a bit soft on the main subject. There's a hint of
the candle holder (?) being close to a poinsettia, but overall the
candleholder is a bit lost. Flare artifacts on the right or somewhat
unpleasant bokeh. In short a good subject that could have stood a
little more work.
Walter Banks
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268492
See the definition above. Live birds are not still life. I'm guessing
you shot this through a window as it's soft and muddy looking. With
really strong backlighing like this, the meter tends to under expose the
image. You need to meter for the subject. In this case, spot metering
off of the redish pot probably would have been close to just right, or
meter the earth and close down 2-3 stops. Or spot meter this side of
the white railing and open up two stops. Composition is centered and
not very appealing.
Bowser
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268493
I don't think this qualifies as a "Still Life" per se. Having said
that, it is a dreary, cluttered image with no specific subject focus.
Considering most of your other efforts this is a real let down.
Tom Gabriel
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268494
For use of light and contrast, this is another very good image for the
bunch. I'm not convinced it's a "still life" but... Image seems a bit
soft, so wonder if you used a tripod for this or is that all blamed on
the high ratio zoom lens? It is interesting in that the color panels on
the left are vertical, but the projection at the back is close to
horizontal and complimenting the beam work above. Neat image. Could
have been worked a bit harder, maybe less of the pews, or a very
controlled shot of flash to lighten them up.
Alan Browne
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268496
A breakfast table with a smooth top and frosted underside. I put the
flash on the floor and shot up through the composition at 1/8 power.
For fill on top, a foamcore board was laying across supports and
parallel to the table (about 8 inches above the work). It took a lot of
shots (moving the flash around and adjusting aperture v flash power) to
get a reasonable balance between the bright clear/color plastics and the
fill light of the solids. I should try this again with a softbox over
the top to give more life to the steel parts. A fun kinda goofing
around before the SI deadline shot.
Al Denelsbeck
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268497
Another one that challenges the definition of "Still life". I do like
the "three worlds" aspect (Surface, sky/trees, bottom of puddle) of this
shot. The overall composition is not strong and a little cropping could
hace helped (top of image). Color is very muted, which the leaf did not
rescue, but the 'blue/grey' glow of the stones is interesting.
Jim Kramer
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268499
A good still life subject. The persepctive seems a bit odd and lopsided
and the oof of the handle weakens the image a bit. I think a deeper DOF
would have been much more effective. Does not seem very sharply
focused. The grain treatment is interesting but seems more blocked up
than simply grainy. (I suspect you underexposed this and made it muddy
in PS while recovering it?). A good idea not taken to its potential.
Rich Pos
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54283851
If you actually did this with lenses stuck on the window (or whatever)
then kudos. Very neat. If Photoshopped, that's something else.
Reminds me of a past Phot of the week image on photo.net of a woman's
face as seen in the many droplets on a screen. The color selection here
helps make the image more interesting and uncluttered despite having a
lot of overall elements. Kudos.
Doug Payne
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54306211
One of my favourites of this SI. The lighting really matches the mood
of the subject (what's on the workbench by the window at the end of the
day). My only complaint here is that it doesn't have enough related
"things" in it to make it complete. Color/light are perfect, just
needed a little more stuff to make it more genuine.
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Doug Payne
> Doug Payne
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54306211
>
> One of my favourites of this SI. The lighting really matches the mood
> of the subject (what's on the workbench by the window at the end of the
> day). My only complaint here is that it doesn't have enough related
> "things" in it to make it complete. Color/light are perfect, just
> needed a little more stuff to make it more genuine.
Thanks for the comments, Alan. I agree that it's a bit 'stark'. Problem
is, at this time of the year the "light at the end of the day on the
workbench" is virtually non-existent. You're seeing light at the
beginning of the day on the kitchen table. The small dots to the right
of the duck's head (a canvasback) are toast crumbs, not sawdust :-) I
didn't feel like lugging a whole bunch of other stuff up from the
workshop. Call me lazy.
Kinon O'Cann
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:Qqgwf.15160$Af.3...@weber.videotron.net...
>
> Bowser
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268493
>
> I don't think this qualifies as a "Still Life" per se. Having said that,
> it is a dreary, cluttered image with no specific subject focus.
> Considering most of your other efforts this is a real let down.
>
This is one of those shots that seemed to work in real life, but the pic
simply doesn't separate the pine tree from the rest of the woodland clutter,
and it is a confused shot. But, I refuse to submit archive shots, and with
little time, this is the result.
Walter Banks
Alan Browne wrote:
> Nice to see a little more participation, this round.
>
> Before cutting into it, a comment about what a "Still Life" is: A still
> life is composed, and limited to, a composition of inanimate objects.
> Flowers, fruit, bolts of cloth, table settings and so on being a very
> few examples.
>
> Onward...
>
> Walter Banks
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268492
>
> See the definition above. Live birds are not still life. I'm guessing
> you shot this through a window as it's soft and muddy looking. With
> really strong backlighing like this, the meter tends to under expose the
> image. You need to meter for the subject. In this case, spot metering
> off of the redish pot probably would have been close to just right, or
> meter the earth and close down 2-3 stops. Or spot meter this side of
> the white railing and open up two stops. Composition is centered and
> not very appealing.
Alan
Thanks for the comments. Point about still life is well taken, it was submitted at all because with that many Pine Siskins all appearing to be planted rather than live. I was experimenting with exposure on a very bright day with new snowfall.
On this image I was stopped down 2 stops from the background. The picture was taken outdoors, so softness that you see was probably a combination of possible lens fogging or the Kodak Camera focus and image compression.
Composition a week out I agree with you.
Walter..
Alan Browne
>
> Alan
>
> Thanks for the comments. Point about still life is well taken, it was
> submitted at all because with that many Pine Siskins all appearing to
> be planted rather than live. I was experimenting with exposure on a
> very bright day with new snowfall.
>
> On this image I was stopped down 2 stops from the background. The
> picture was taken outdoors, so softness that you see was probably a
> combination of possible lens fogging or the Kodak Camera focus and
> image compression.
You have to meter for what it is you want to expose correctly. I would
have incident metered from the subject pointing at the lens, which would
have ignored the bright background completely (and let it blow out even
more). This could been done by spot metering the rail on the camera
side, and opening up about two stops. It's all about fooling the meter
more than you allow it to fool you.
Alan Browne
> This is one of those shots that seemed to work in real life, but the pic
> simply doesn't separate the pine tree from the rest of the woodland clutter,
> and it is a confused shot. But, I refuse to submit archive shots, and with
> little time, this is the result.
I'd rather lash out with my nastiness on a good archive than a humdrum,
meets the deadline shot like this.
Alan Browne
> Thanks for the comments, Alan. I agree that it's a bit 'stark'. Problem
> is, at this time of the year the "light at the end of the day on the
> workbench" is virtually non-existent. You're seeing light at the
> beginning of the day on the kitchen table. The small dots to the right
The point about the light was that particular quality of light. Occurs
in the morning and evening, of course ... perfect.
> of the duck's head (a canvasback) are toast crumbs, not sawdust :-) I
I love it. It's really great when the photo is so convincing that it
leads us to believe the details are genuine fractions ( ;-) ) of the rest.
> didn't feel like lugging a whole bunch of other stuff up from the
> workshop. Call me lazy.
Again? Okay, you're lazy. Want a second opinion? You're ugly too!
Kinon O'Cann
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>
> I'd rather lash out with my nastiness on a good archive than a humdrum,
> meets the deadline shot like this.
A little humdrum, yes, but I don't shoot a lot of still life shots. And it
was very, very still in the woods that day. Not much life, though. The shot
looks a lot better big than small, too. I probably won't have anything good
for next week, either. I'm on the road in Phoenix for the week. Not a lot of
snow there. Lots of brown, though.
Anyway, I'll be sure to provide lots of opportunities for you to vent your
nastiness in the future. As many, many trolls have pointed out, you are, in
fact, evil.
;-)
Walter Banks
I never thought about using the rail as a reference it is a good idea.
This type of shot is where digital camera's are a good news bad news issue. The 8 bit dynamic range of the camera means that it is hard to post process exposure errors. To compound the issue the jpeg compression loses detail that can be seen in the
electronic viewfinder in bright parts of objects (small black feathers on the back of a Hairy Woodpeckers for example).
Thanks for your comments
w..
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:twxwf.35324$Af.7...@weber.videotron.net...
>
>>I'd rather lash out with my nastiness on a good archive than a humdrum,
>>meets the deadline shot like this.
>
>
> A little humdrum, yes, but I don't shoot a lot of still life shots. And it
> was very, very still in the woods that day. Not much life, though. The shot
> looks a lot better big than small, too. I probably won't have anything good
> for next week, either. I'm on the road in Phoenix for the week. Not a lot of
> snow there. Lots of brown, though.
>
> Anyway, I'll be sure to provide lots of opportunities for you to vent your
> nastiness in the future. As many, many trolls have pointed out, you are, in
> fact, evil.
Ah, more fans.
Alan Browne
> Alan,
>
> I never thought about using the rail as a reference it is a good
> idea.
As long as you can compensate from that reading.
>
> This type of shot is where digital camera's are a good news bad news
> issue. The 8 bit dynamic range of the camera means that it is hard to
> post process exposure errors. To compound the issue the jpeg
> compression loses detail that can be seen in the electronic
> viewfinder in bright parts of objects (small black feathers on the
> back of a Hairy Woodpeckers for example).
Well I hate to say it, but time for film or a DSLR...
>
> Thanks for your comments
You're very welcome.
Al Denelsbeck
> Nice to see a little more participation, this round.
>
> Before cutting into it, a comment about what a "Still Life" is: A
> still life is composed, and limited to, a composition of inanimate
> objects. Flowers, fruit, bolts of cloth, table settings and so on
> being a very few examples.
Unless, of course, you read the mandate...
<snippage>
> Al Denelsbeck
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268497
>
> Another one that challenges the definition of "Still life". I do like
> the "three worlds" aspect (Surface, sky/trees, bottom of puddle) of
> this shot. The overall composition is not strong and a little
> cropping could hace helped (top of image). Color is very muted, which
> the leaf did not rescue, but the 'blue/grey' glow of the stones is
> interesting.
Light wasn't cooperating that day, though with a clearer sky, the
reflection would have toned down considerably. I was, however,
aiming for the stillness of the water surface to reinforce the
mandate, and couldn't put together a composition that showed the
rushing water that surrounded this rock and still have the tiny pool
remain prominent.
And I guess I could've fulfilled the true definition of Still Life
by using a dried flower instead of a dried leaf, but then I couldn't
bait people to comment on how leaves have shown up in my last three
submissions. Same leaf, too ;-)
Okay, I lied about that. This one is many miles from the other two,
and really was within the pool.
Thanks for commenting. I would offer some myself, but that would
take time from watching people responding to trolls so
effectively...
- Al.
To respond directly, insert a dash to match domain below.
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Bandicoot
news:Qqgwf.15160$Af.3...@weber.videotron.net...
> Nice to see a little more participation, this round.
>
> Before cutting into it, a comment about what a "Still Life" is: A
> still life is composed, and limited to, a composition of inanimate
> objects. Flowers, fruit, bolts of cloth, table settings and so on
> being a very few examples.
[True, but when I set the mandate I did give some latitude beyond the
classical definition, so that people only interested in outdoor work might
still feel they wanted to participate.]
>
> Onward...
>
> Bandicoot
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268471
>
> This is a great still life and wonderful study of light and contrast.
> Very thoughtfully done. It gives me the impression that it is
> layered from the floor up with light being the paintbrush and the
> dried flowers and pots the canvas. The dead black background
> at top is perfect for this composition. The only negative, though
> that's a strong word, is the stem of the flower from the smaller
> pot being on such a strong angle relative to the rest. OTOH, it
> places the flower head nicely resulting in a 'triplet' of circles
> described by the flower shapes. I really like this image and the
> thought that went into making it.
>
Thank you for all that - I feel somewhat flattered, and a little embarrassed
that I still haven't found the time to put up my own critique/comments.
Since emailing this to Al I've worked on the scan a bit more and brought
down the background a little more and brightened the mid-tones a little, and
I think that improves the image - certainly it makes a better print now,
though whether the difference would show on the web I doubt.
I know what you mean about the diagonal stem that is so dynamic when the
rest of the composition is very still, but in the end I wanted that seedhead
where it is, but didn't want to move the small jug any further in front of
the larger one, so the only line joining those two points, was that one. In
fact I find I quite like the 'kick' that the dramatic diagonal gives.
This isn't a 35mm image, as some may have guessed. It's shot on a 6x9
rollfilm back on an Arca-Swiss M-Line 4x5. I prefer a monorail for
still-life (usually) and on this occasion I needed the movements in any
case: there is significant tilt employed to move the plane of focus closer
to the camera at the top of the image so that it passes through the jugs and
through the nearer seed-heads. Most of this is back tilt, which also
changes the size relationships, emphasising the seed-heads so that the
bright highlights on the jugs weren't too big and overwhelming, but there is
also some front tilt so that this effect doesn't go too far and make the
jugs look too small for what they are supporting.
Lens was a Rodenstock 150mm f9 Apo-Ronar, which on 6x9 is about the
equivalent of a 60mm lens on 35mm. most of my still life is done with this
lens or a 127mm f4.7 Rodenstock Ysaron - though I've recently added a used
Schneider 240mm f9 G-Claron to give a bit more working distance for 6x9, and
also to be a better choice for the very occasional still life that I do on
4x5. Aperture was f32, which gave enough DoF when combined with the tilts -
without tilt I'd have needed at least f90 and so had much lower resolution.
The seedheads are Allium cristophii, which I grow in my garden, and the
backdrop is a roll of dove grey seamless paper.
Despite all the techno-babble, what makes the picture is the light. I had
seen very good evening light for a couple of days, and decided to set up a
shot that would take advantage of it. This is all daylight, low evening sun
with a warm tint coming through a West facing window and goboed to produce
the shadows. Fill came from the large North window directly behind the
camera and from reflection - from the paper to lighten the undersides of the
jugs and from a wall opposite the main light which stopped their handles
disappearing. This wall is painted red, and usually I block it with black
or white flats when working in that room, but this time I blocked only part
of it with black cards, and allowed the very warm light to come through to
the jugs as I felt it helped the feel of the picture.
This all sounds like more work than it was: the longest part of the job was
getting the tilts just right - the key was having seen the light already,
and then setting up the next day so that when the evening came I was ready
for it.
I do shoot a lot of still-life as 'work' but this is a little different,
more dramatic, than I usually do, and I am pleased with it. I may do more
work like this now, I think...
Thanks for your kind comments, and interesting review of all the other SI
pictures this round.
Peter
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:Qqgwf.15160$Af.3...@weber.videotron.net...
>
>>Nice to see a little more participation, this round.
>>
>>Before cutting into it, a comment about what a "Still Life" is: A
>>still life is composed, and limited to, a composition of inanimate
>>objects. Flowers, fruit, bolts of cloth, table settings and so on
>>being a very few examples.
>
>
> [True, but when I set the mandate I did give some latitude beyond the
> classical definition, so that people only interested in outdoor work might
> still feel they wanted to participate.]
I read that after my labor on the comments and was too lazy to fix.
You're the only one who picked up on it though so, nyah-nyah.
>>Bandicoot
>>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268471
>>
>>This is a great still life and wonderful study of light and contrast.
>>Very thoughtfully done. It gives me the impression that it is
>>layered from the floor up with light being the paintbrush and the
>>dried flowers and pots the canvas. The dead black background
>>at top is perfect for this composition. The only negative, though
>>that's a strong word, is the stem of the flower from the smaller
>>pot being on such a strong angle relative to the rest. OTOH, it
>>places the flower head nicely resulting in a 'triplet' of circles
>>described by the flower shapes. I really like this image and the
>>thought that went into making it.
>>
>
>
> Thank you for all that - I feel somewhat flattered, and a little embarrassed
> that I still haven't found the time to put up my own critique/comments.
>
> Since emailing this to Al I've worked on the scan a bit more and brought
> down the background a little more and brightened the mid-tones a little, and
> I think that improves the image - certainly it makes a better print now,
> though whether the difference would show on the web I doubt.
>
> I know what you mean about the diagonal stem that is so dynamic when the
> rest of the composition is very still, but in the end I wanted that seedhead
> where it is, but didn't want to move the small jug any further in front of
> the larger one, so the only line joining those two points, was that one. In
> fact I find I quite like the 'kick' that the dramatic diagonal gives.
I thought about my comment afterward and said to myself "Cripes that's
picky, Alan."
> This isn't a 35mm image, as some may have guessed. It's shot on a 6x9
> rollfilm back on an Arca-Swiss M-Line 4x5. I prefer a monorail for
> still-life (usually) and on this occasion I needed the movements in any
> case: there is significant tilt employed to move the plane of focus closer
> to the camera at the top of the image so that it passes through the jugs and
Oh-oh. Annika will get a 4x5 now that you've said "jugs".
> through the nearer seed-heads. Most of this is back tilt, which also
> changes the size relationships, emphasising the seed-heads so that the
> bright highlights on the jugs weren't too big and overwhelming, but there is
> also some front tilt so that this effect doesn't go too far and make the
> jugs look too small for what they are supporting.
If you say so. It's hard to visualize the effect of the tilts from the
words ... even with the photo.
>
> Lens was a Rodenstock 150mm f9 Apo-Ronar, which on 6x9 is about the
> equivalent of a 60mm lens on 35mm. most of my still life is done with this
> lens or a 127mm f4.7 Rodenstock Ysaron - though I've recently added a used
> Schneider 240mm f9 G-Claron to give a bit more working distance for 6x9, and
> also to be a better choice for the very occasional still life that I do on
> 4x5. Aperture was f32, which gave enough DoF when combined with the tilts -
> without tilt I'd have needed at least f90 and so had much lower resolution.
>
> The seedheads are Allium cristophii, which I grow in my garden, and the
> backdrop is a roll of dove grey seamless paper.
>
> Despite all the techno-babble, what makes the picture is the light. I had
> seen very good evening light for a couple of days, and decided to set up a
> shot that would take advantage of it. This is all daylight, low evening sun
> with a warm tint coming through a West facing window and goboed to produce
> the shadows. Fill came from the large North window directly behind the
> camera and from reflection - from the paper to lighten the undersides of the
> jugs and from a wall opposite the main light which stopped their handles
> disappearing. This wall is painted red, and usually I block it with black
> or white flats when working in that room, but this time I blocked only part
> of it with black cards, and allowed the very warm light to come through to
> the jugs as I felt it helped the feel of the picture.
>
> This all sounds like more work than it was: the longest part of the job was
> getting the tilts just right - the key was having seen the light already,
> and then setting up the next day so that when the evening came I was ready
> for it.
Who says there's no work in a great image?
> I do shoot a lot of still-life as 'work' but this is a little different,
> more dramatic, than I usually do, and I am pleased with it. I may do more
> work like this now, I think...
Should sell in the right market.
> Thanks for your kind comments, and interesting review of all the other SI
> pictures this round.
Well deserved and I doubt I did your image justice.
Bandicoot
> Bandicoot wrote:
>
> > "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > news:Qqgwf.15160$Af.3...@weber.videotron.net...
>
> > This isn't a 35mm image, as some may have guessed. It's shot on a > >
6x9 rollfilm back on an Arca-Swiss M-Line 4x5. I prefer a
> > monorail for still-life (usually) and on this occasion I needed the
> > movements in any case: there is significant tilt employed to move
> > the plane of focus closer to the camera at the top of the image so
> > that it passes through the jugs and
>
> Oh-oh. Annika will get a 4x5 now that you've said "jugs".
>
ROFL!
A couple of months back my girlfriend sent me a card with a cartoon version
of a 'Vermeer like' painting showing a buxom lady in C16th dress working in
a kitchen. On the table are earthenware bowls and jugs, and she is pouring
milk from one of the jugs as if in the process of making cheese. The
caption was two different newspaper reviews:
The Times - "Words can't describe the sublime way Vermeer has depicted the
earthenware in this masterpiece."
The Sun - "Nice jugs."
Since then, "Nice earthenware" has become a running joke for us...
Thanks again for your other comments,
Peter