Opinions wanted: special effects shot (without computer graphics)
egd
innovative, for me at least, with a special effects shot, and what I am
looking for are opinions on it, particularly in-depth ones. I did the
shot without using computer graphics, in the vein of good old-fashioned
science fiction film shots, and I am aiming to improve this technique.
I have posted the pic on the photoSig site, but, while I have had some
response there, it hasn't been as useful as I would have hoped. Here is
the URL; even if you don't like this shot, please let me know what you
think:
Io Landing
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=290574
Thanks,
Gavin Gillespie
news:lrOXCAB9...@ysbaddaden.demon.co.uk...
It looks to me like a fruit cake in an oven.
--
Gavin Gillespie @ Nottingham UK
Website : www.Giltbrook.co.uk
Michael J Davis
OK, you asked! I think the problem is that I really don't know what to
say.
It's an experimental shot, right? If so does it please *you*? That's
what matters.
Judging it as a picture, I'm not impressed, too little colour contrast,
no real composition. Would I hang it on my wall? Well not really. So how
do you want me to judge it?
I'm impressed that it's a piece of bread and think that shows creativity
on your part. But I think your writing is better than your photography
at present.
My advice is to invite you to concentrate on making pictures that don't
require loads of commentary, just pictures that hit us between the eyes.
I sure wish I could.
Oh and if you want to get your own back - have a look at boring My
Pictures on http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk.
I'm just getting some ready from four hours in London on Saturday.
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
the meaning of "discussion" with "discursion".
<><
egd
19:36:21 posted the following on uk.rec.photo.misc:
>egd <e...@ysbaddaden.demon.co.uk> observed
>>I don't mean to tout myself, but I have done something rather
>>innovative, for me at least, with a special effects shot, and what I am
>>looking for are opinions on it, particularly in-depth ones. I did the
>>shot without using computer graphics, in the vein of good old-fashioned
>>science fiction film shots, and I am aiming to improve this technique.
>>
>>I have posted the pic on the photoSig site, but, while I have had some
>>response there, it hasn't been as useful as I would have hoped. Here is
>>the URL; even if you don't like this shot, please let me know what you
>>think:
>>
>>Io Landing
>>http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=290574
>
>OK, you asked! I think the problem is that I really don't know what to
>say.
>
Yes, I asked! I wish to encourage innovation in photography.
Innovation doesn't always work out, but one can try.
On a newsgroup, if you don't know what to say, it is usually better not
to say it, by the way.
>It's an experimental shot, right? If so does it please *you*? That's
>what matters.
No, pleasing myself is not what matters: I am not that arrogant and I am
not that unscientific, either. I was trying to see whether the effect
worked and that means showing it to others to find out their reactions.
I took up photography not all that long ago: on 28 August 2002, to be
precise. I am rapidly trying to push what I can do, both with my
equipment and my ability and, as part of this learning process, I try to
find out what others think.
>
>Judging it as a picture, I'm not impressed, too little colour contrast,
>no real composition. Would I hang it on my wall? Well not really. So how
>do you want me to judge it?
I'm not asking whether you would hang it on your wall: there are plenty
of pictures out there that I like that I wouldn't hang on my wall. I'm
asking whether the effect worked. That is the purpose of this pic. I
would like you to judge it as you would a special effect; if that's not
what you would like, well, fine, but don't expect me to exactly be
bowled over.
>
>I'm impressed that it's a piece of bread and think that shows creativity
>on your part. But I think your writing is better than your photography
>at present.
Let's see, you have now judged *all* of my photography based on *one*
experimental picture. Thank you very much. You might consider that I
did say it was experimental and that implies my other pics are *not*
like it. Before you make *generalised* comments about my photography,
you might at least do me the courtesy of looking at my other pictures:
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=35521
>
>My advice is to invite you to concentrate on making pictures that don't
>require loads of commentary, just pictures that hit us between the eyes.
>I sure wish I could.
I didn't ask for your advice; I asked for your judgement of this shot.
As for your advice: you might also consider that, since I was trying to
simulate the effect of a probe landing on Io, I had to consider that at
least some of the viewers of the picture might not know anything about
Io, such as that it is a moon of Jupiter. For all I knew, the Yanks who
go to the photoSig site might have thought Io was a city in Iraq, which
wouldn't be all that surprising given that I have seen posts on other
newsgroups from Yanks screaming about invading that country showing that
they think Iraq is located near, or even in, Europe. I had to balance
this sort of ignorance with the more educated outlook in some quarters
here on the other side of the pond, who realise that Saddam is not about
to 'roll his tanks over Poland': people who actually know something
about the wider world and the universe in which they live. I also had
to consider this country (the UK), as well, where, from what I
understand, semi-colons are now only being taught in state schools to
the 'brighter pupils' and, given that, who knows whether the planets of
the solar system are even being mentioned. To balance all these
different requirements without insulting anyone's intelligence, I chose
to present the explanation as a story.
If you look at my other pics, you will find that I don't usually write
stories such as this. I do provide more detailed explanations than
most, because, I, as a critic, find it helpful to know what the
photographer meant to achieve by the picture, so that I can take that
into account in my critique where I tell him what he actually achieved,
at least in my view. I also like to explain the circumstances that led
to the taking of the shot or any difficulties I encountered, so that
other photographers on the site who have also found themselves in
similar circumstances or faced with like difficulties, do not think
themselves alone. It can be very discouraging learning to photograph,
thinking, for instance, that wild birds seem to pose for everyone else,
or that other photographers don't meet hostility when taking street
shots. Finally, I like to explain any special effects I have used or
any electronic manipulation I have done so that those looking at the
shot, whether or not they like it, can use these ideas or methods for
themselves.
>
>Oh and if you want to get your own back - have a look at boring My
>Pictures on http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk.
No, I don't think so at this moment. If you have a look at the sort of
critiques I write on the photoSig site, I put quite a bit of time and
effort into each one of them. I couldn't possibly find the time to look
at a whole site full of pictures: choose one picture and point it out to
me and you will find out how a critic can judge a picture without trying
to judge someone's whole photographic ability.
>
>I'm just getting some ready from four hours in London on Saturday.
>
>Mike
Michael J Davis
>Michael J Davis <mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> on Tue, 10 Sep 2002 at
>19:36:21 posted the following on uk.rec.photo.misc:
>>say.
>>
>Yes, I asked! I wish to encourage innovation in photography.
>Innovation doesn't always work out, but one can try.
>
>On a newsgroup, if you don't know what to say, it is usually better not
>to say it, by the way.
OK, I'm just trying to help....
>>It's an experimental shot, right? If so does it please *you*? That's
>>what matters.
>
>No, pleasing myself is not what matters: I am not that arrogant and I am
>not that unscientific, either. I was trying to see whether the effect
>worked and that means showing it to others to find out their reactions.
Fine.
>
>I took up photography not all that long ago: on 28 August 2002, to be
>precise. I am rapidly trying to push what I can do, both with my
>equipment and my ability and, as part of this learning process, I try to
>find out what others think.
I learnt too, by trial and error, and by comments. You are absolutely
right in this.
>>
>>Judging it as a picture, I'm not impressed, too little colour contrast,
>>no real composition. Would I hang it on my wall? Well not really. So how
>>do you want me to judge it?
>
>I'm not asking whether you would hang it on your wall: there are plenty
>of pictures out there that I like that I wouldn't hang on my wall. I'm
>asking whether the effect worked. That is the purpose of this pic. I
>would like you to judge it as you would a special effect; if that's not
>what you would like, well, fine, but don't expect me to exactly be
>bowled over.
Hold on, you asked for my frank comments. You got them. I'm expecting
nothing. Just being frank. Why should I expect you to be bowled over.
You asked, remember? I'm trying to spend a little of my time giving you
feedback.
>
>>
>>I'm impressed that it's a piece of bread and think that shows creativity
>>on your part. But I think your writing is better than your photography
>>at present.
>
>Let's see, you have now judged *all* of my photography based on *one*
>experimental picture. Thank you very much.
OK, sorry, the smiley was missing. Have a few:-) :-) :-)
>You might consider that I
>did say it was experimental and that implies my other pics are *not*
>like it.
My point was that, as an experimental photo you wrote an essay. I liked
it. That's all.
>Before you make *generalised* comments about my photography,
>you might at least do me the courtesy of looking at my other pictures:
>
>http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=35521
I did actually.
>>My advice is to invite you to concentrate on making pictures that don't
>>require loads of commentary, just pictures that hit us between the eyes.
>>I sure wish I could.
>
>I didn't ask for your advice; I asked for your judgement of this shot.
Sorry. I won't offer any more.
>As for your advice: you might also consider that, since I was trying to
>simulate the effect of a probe landing on Io, I had to consider that at
>least some of the viewers of the picture might not know anything about
>Io, such as that it is a moon of Jupiter. For all I knew, the Yanks who
>go to the photoSig site might have thought Io was a city in Iraq, which
>wouldn't be all that surprising given that I have seen posts on other
>newsgroups from Yanks screaming about invading that country showing that
>they think Iraq is located near, or even in, Europe. I had to balance
>this sort of ignorance with the more educated outlook in some quarters
>here on the other side of the pond, who realise that Saddam is not about
>to 'roll his tanks over Poland': people who actually know something
>about the wider world and the universe in which they live. I also had
>to consider this country (the UK), as well, where, from what I
>understand, semi-colons are now only being taught in state schools to
>the 'brighter pupils' and, given that, who knows whether the planets of
>the solar system are even being mentioned. To balance all these
>different requirements without insulting anyone's intelligence, I chose
>to present the explanation as a story.
OK. That's fine. But you asked for comments on the picture, not the
presentation. That's all.
>If you look at my other pics, you will find that I don't usually write
>stories such as this. I do provide more detailed explanations than
>most, because, I, as a critic, find it helpful to know what the
>photographer meant to achieve by the picture, so that I can take that
>into account in my critique where I tell him what he actually achieved,
>at least in my view. I also like to explain the circumstances that led
>to the taking of the shot or any difficulties I encountered, so that
>other photographers on the site who have also found themselves in
>similar circumstances or faced with like difficulties, do not think
>themselves alone. It can be very discouraging learning to photograph,
>thinking, for instance, that wild birds seem to pose for everyone else,
>or that other photographers don't meet hostility when taking street
>shots. Finally, I like to explain any special effects I have used or
>any electronic manipulation I have done so that those looking at the
>shot, whether or not they like it, can use these ideas or methods for
>themselves.
OK. That's interesting. But it wasn't clear what you wanted comments on.
Sorry you didn't like my frankness.
>>Oh and if you want to get your own back - have a look at boring My
>>Pictures on http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk.
>
>No, I don't think so at this moment. If you have a look at the sort of
>critiques I write on the photoSig site, I put quite a bit of time and
>effort into each one of them. I couldn't possibly find the time to look
>at a whole site full of pictures: choose one picture and point it out to
>me and you will find out how a critic can judge a picture without trying
>to judge someone's whole photographic ability.
OK, fine.
Best wishes - I hope you get as much fun and frustration out of
photography as I have. - It's the frustration in trying to get the stuff
right, that makes it fun.
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Even Photographic newsgroups sometimes lose perspective.
<><
SteveR
>egd <e...@ysbaddaden.demon.co.uk> observed
>>Michael J Davis <mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> on Tue, 10 Sep 2002 at
>>19:36:21 posted the following on uk.rec.photo.misc:
>>>OK, you asked! I think the problem is that I really don't know what to
>>>say.
>>>
>
>>Before you make *generalised* comments about my photography,
>>you might at least do me the courtesy of looking at my other pictures:
>>
>>http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=35521
>
>I did actually.
You might have looked, but, having looked myself, I'd say that you don't
seem to have *seen*. Your words gave the impression that the whole
collection was all much-of-a-muchness, certainly in quality, and most
likely in style as well, and that just isn't true.
The pictures are varied: well-seen street scenes, still life, nature
shots, and more formal-looking portraits, along with some fairly unusual
abstracts.
Let's explore some of these categories.
Street scenes, including some non-street candids:
"Playing with Fire":
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=293764
I like this picture because of how it captures the juggler's
concentration, the movement of the clubs, and the fiery heat of the
flames. The background is not so flat as to be unnatural, without being
intrusive. Good job!
"Distance and a cigarette":
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=287709
A man and his cigarette, distant from a cold-looking world and its
bustle and noise.
"From the Crowd":
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=297013
An unusual-looking girl in a crowd of ordinary British shoppers. Her
manner is remote from them, and her appearance is different as well. I
think I recognise the area, and it's difficult to get good shots like
this there.
"Doing His Very Best":
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=282160
The old chap in this scene is the very image of concentration. He gives
the impression that *nothing* is going to get between him and doing the
very best job he can on painting that window frame, and this picture
captures that perfectly.
Still life:
"Berry Red":
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=270826
This strawberry looks good enough to eat, right there on my screen!
Seriously, though, the close-in shooting is wonderful here.
"Red on Red by Red":
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=276681
The delicate shading of the red tomato into the darkness at the top
right is just wonderful, and the highlights in the drops of wine are
brilliant, adding just the right touch of hard-edged brightness to the
picture.
Nature:
"O Golden One":
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=273734
This picture sits almost on the edge between a nature shot and a still
life, but whichever side of the line you put it on, I think it's great.
The background has gone all the way to black, allowing us to concentrate
on just the flower and its branch. The lighting on the flower is
balanced just right - none of it is burnt out, while the shadow areas
are not dark enough to block up. As a result, all the petals have
visible texture, and they are also distinguishable one from another.
"Alone":
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=279967
The title and comment simply reinforce the duck's isolated nature. His
position, with his head ducked down (sorry) and beak just in the water
seems to enhance that overall lonely feeling. The technical execution
is great as well, as it's notoriously difficult to get good texture in
the feathers of white birds, and there is a highlight in the eye,
preventing the "possessed" look that's so common in pictures of birds.
"Bird's Eye View":
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=297029
A duck again, but one of those more colourful ones. (No, I don't know
what kind. A duck's a small bird that swims on the water and goes
quack, right? <g>) It's sharp, well composed, with interesting patterns
in the water, and the most unusual viewpoint I've ever seen a water-bird
taken from.
More formal portraits:
"Holding back laughter", "A little blue", "Elsewhere":
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=280016
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=282183
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=284993
These three portraits show something about the photographer's ability.
They are obviously pictures of the same woman, even without the words
telling us so. She is a good subject, with an expressive face, and the
photographer has captured three very different moods very well. The
mood varies from happy and about to laugh, through a sort of sad that's
just on the blue side of wistful, to a distant, contemplative look. Very
well done.
-----
I had a look at your own pictures. These comments are general in
nature, and simply my own opinion.
I think you've compressed them too much, as the compression artifacts
are a bit intrusive.
I think that there is potential here, but it isn't fully realised. Try
to get closer in to the subjects - many of the pictures contain lots of
stuff that distracts from the main subject. For example, there seems to
have been room to move to the right in "Pilings", where a tighter zoom
would have lost the over-bright green area and the railing. The pilings
themselves are very interesting.
So as to avoid accusations of cowardice, of being afraid of letting you
see my own work, here is the relevant link:
http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=35348
--
"Eagle-eyed" Steve
The pictures they didn't want me to take:
http://www.koolpages.com/theoddcar/
or:
http://www.grandfathersaxe.demon.co.uk/
On photoSIG: http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=35348
T.P.
I wish you'd just keep your mouth shut. It's people like you who ruin
critique sites; you and your kind might speak volumes but never say
anything of any utility.
Given that you show the dreaded "Fish" logo at the end of your
message, I suggest that you ask your God's guidance on changing your
approach to life before it is too late. On the other hand, there is
no-one more judgmental than a born-again Christian, so maybe there is
very little hope for you.
Michael J Davis
>
>I wish you'd just keep your mouth shut.
>It's people like you who ruin
>critique sites; you and your kind might speak volumes but never say
>anything of any utility.
What an amazing generalisation! How do you know what I am like?
Anyway, this is *not* a critique site. It's uk.rec.photo.misc.
>
>Given that you show the dreaded "Fish" logo at the end of your
>message,
I'm sorry if that's a problem for you.
>I suggest that you ask your God's guidance on changing your
>approach to life before it is too late. On the other hand, there is
>no-one more judgmental than a born-again Christian, so maybe there is
>very little hope for you.
Your comment *sounds* very judgmental to me. :-) But you are entitled to
your opinion, even if you think I'm not. I may be mistaken, I often am!
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
"If you are offended by anything, whether intended or
unintended, you do not know the way of peace..."
St. Maximus the Confessor
<><
Michael J Davis
>Michael J Davis <mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>egd <e...@ysbaddaden.demon.co.uk> observed
>>>Michael J Davis <mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> on Tue, 10 Sep 2002 at
>>>19:36:21 posted the following on uk.rec.photo.misc:
>>>>OK, you asked! I think the problem is that I really don't know what to
>>>>say.
>>>>
>[snip]
>>
>>>Before you make *generalised* comments about my photography,
>>>you might at least do me the courtesy of looking at my other pictures:
>>>
>>>http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=35521
>>
>>I did actually.
>
>You might have looked, but, having looked myself, I'd say that you don't
>seem to have *seen*. Your words gave the impression that the whole
>collection was all much-of-a-muchness, certainly in quality, and most
>likely in style as well, and that just isn't true.
>
>The pictures are varied: well-seen street scenes, still life, nature
>shots, and more formal-looking portraits, along with some fairly unusual
>abstracts.
>
Thanks. Before we continue with this and risk further misunderstandings,
I apologise if I dismissed egd's specific shot (and the only one I was
commenting on) but comparing it with his writing. But it was the effect
it made on me.
The others (I didn't look at all the ones you mention) are very nice,
and varied as you say, - but I didn't look at them to comment, for the
same reason you given for mine. I was trying to be specific - and frank
(my own opinion) - about one shot.
I have snipped others' comments you quoted for the moment.
>I had a look at your own pictures. These comments are general in
>nature, and simply my own opinion.
Thank you for that, and for your comments.
>
>I think you've compressed them too much, as the compression artifacts
>are a bit intrusive.
I agree. Indeed the problems with that and with sharpening for web
display are the subject of another thread here.
>
>I think that there is potential here, but it isn't fully realised.
(story of my life!!)
>Try
>to get closer in to the subjects - many of the pictures contain lots of
>stuff that distracts from the main subject. For example, there seems to
>have been room to move to the right in "Pilings", where a tighter zoom
>would have lost the over-bright green area and the railing.
Interesting, I actually kept the green on purpose as contrast!
However your comment is valid for much of my stuff. I get close with the
camera, get to the darkroom/computer and trim loads off, print, trim
again. Then of course I run into quality problems...... :(
>The pilings
>themselves are very interesting.
Yes.
>
>So as to avoid accusations of cowardice, of being afraid of letting you
>see my own work, here is the relevant link:
> http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=35348
OK, more later.....
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
"Guinea pig" is just the name given
to the first lemming to jump!
<><
Rachael Nex
I get the impression you want critique from pros or semi pros (which I am
neither) but I'll offer a (late) comment anyway.
Apart from looking like it is the cake of the devil ;-) ("Fruit Cake in
Hell" could be its alternative title), I like it. It *does* look very early
Star Trek (which, as we all know, borrowed heavily from sf b movies that
boldy went in the same direction before). Taken in that context it is very
pleasing.
And of course, I appreciate it because it was taken with the FP2800z, which
is currently the camera I have. I've been taking (experimental and very
weird, by all accounts) macro shots of flowers in a clear blue watering can
this afternoon, - so I'm all for experimental shots.
So, - will you be doing more of the same do you reckon ? I would be
interested to see some more in the same vein.
(BTW - I like "Red on Red by Red" especially.)
Rachael
Tony Parkinson
news:+$7GwDEyr...@trustsof.demon.co.uk...
> T. P. <t...@noemailthanks.com> observed
> >I suggest that you ask your God's guidance on changing your
> >approach to life before it is too late. On the other hand, there
is
> >no-one more judgmental than a born-again Christian, so maybe there
is
> >very little hope for you.
>
> Your comment *sounds* very judgmental to me. :-) But you are
entitled to
> your opinion, even if you think I'm not. I may be mistaken, I often
am!
>
than many of the whining PC net nannys who seem to exist here only to
whine and complain about those they disagree with.
However, I do think TP went way over the top here with a comment which
is blatantly offensive and insulting to a substantial proportion of
the NG's regular posters !!
Not that I suppose TP will be bothered one iota by this, but that,
after all is part of his "charm"
T.P.
>
>However, I do think TP went way over the top here with a comment which
>is blatantly offensive and insulting to a substantial proportion of
>the NG's regular posters !!
Thank you. I do try.
Michael J Davis
>SteveR <st...@grandfathersaxe.demon.co.uk> observed
>However your comment is valid for much of my stuff. I get close with
>the camera, get to the darkroom/computer and trim loads off, print,
>trim again. Then of course I run into quality problems...... :(
>
>>The pilings
>>themselves are very interesting.
>Yes.
>>
>>So as to avoid accusations of cowardice, of being afraid of letting you
>>see my own work, here is the relevant link:
>> http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=35348
>
>OK, more later.....
.......So replying to my own posting.....
Having only a dial-up account I find the photosig site frustrating in
the time it takes to download the pictures, as a result I only managed
about three pictures in fifteen minutes. Even the thumbnails took a lot
of time. (As someone else mentioned my pictures supper from compression
artifacts, but at least one can get to see them quickly!!) How big are
those files?
I really liked the tree with evening sunshine, but accept the comments
made about it's not being interesting enough in composition. I was
struggling trying to get some trees against a sunset recently, and faced
the same problem, so I understand. You sky graduations are super.
Next I enjoyed the Oxford (was it) group of people. As an inveterate
street photographer myself, I know how satisfying it is when the figures
hang together neatly. In your picture the eye goes round and round and
back to the slightly out of focus man looking directly at the camera.
Anyway you've made me decide to put up some of my very best photos from
over the years into a special gallery with larger file sizes so the
detail and quality may be seen.
And just one further comment on egd's photos - I though the man painting
the window was wonderful! At first I wanted tighter cropping, but I
tried that and preferred the way you had it as the balance was just
right. Again another spontaneous shot that really works. The decisive
moment indeed!
I haven't commented *on* the photosig site itself, everything was so
sluggish that I haven't registered. But thanks for drawing my attention
to it.
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
<>{
Free advice is often worth
less than you paid for it.
<>{
Tony Parkinson
news:69q5ou8u4smkkde5o...@4ax.com...
8^)
T.P.
Thanks! I always relish a challenge!
egd
20:11:16 posted the following on uk.rec.photo.misc:
>
>"egd" <e...@ysbaddaden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:lrOXCAB9...@ysbaddaden.demon.co.uk...
>> I don't mean to tout myself, but I have done something rather
>> innovative, for me at least, with a special effects shot, and what I am
>> looking for are opinions on it, particularly in-depth ones. I did the
>> shot without using computer graphics, in the vein of good old-fashioned
>> science fiction film shots, and I am aiming to improve this technique.
>>
>> I have posted the pic on the photoSig site, but, while I have had some
>> response there, it hasn't been as useful as I would have hoped. Here is
>> the URL; even if you don't like this shot, please let me know what you
>> think:
>>
>> Io Landing
>> http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=290574
>>
>>
><de-lurk>
>
>
>I get the impression you want critique from pros or semi pros (which I am
>neither) but I'll offer a (late) comment anyway.
No, I wanted opinions from anyone who cared to look at the picture. I'm
hardly a pro or even a semi-pro myself. Thanks for taking the time to
give your constructive criticism and I apologise for taking so long to
reply but I have been out and about taking photos and time just slipped
away from me.
>
>Apart from looking like it is the cake of the devil ;-) ("Fruit Cake in
>Hell" could be its alternative title), I like it. It *does* look very early
>Star Trek (which, as we all know, borrowed heavily from sf b movies that
>boldy went in the same direction before). Taken in that context it is very
>pleasing.
>
Thank you: that's what I wanted to know, whether it worked or not as a
sci-fi effect as that's what I was attempting. I was thinking more of
'Doctor Who' than Star Trek, but both featured effects of this nature at
one time or the other.
>And of course, I appreciate it because it was taken with the FP2800z, which
>is currently the camera I have. I've been taking (experimental and very
>weird, by all accounts) macro shots of flowers in a clear blue watering can
>this afternoon, - so I'm all for experimental shots.
I would very much like to see your pictures. Have you submitted any to
photoSig? Do you have a web site? I am very interested in all that can
be done with this particular camera. I have been trying every type of
shot of which I can think and for which I have the resources. It's a
good camera for many purposes. I like it for taking macro shots, with
it's easy to use close-up feature; the only problem I have with this is
that if the camera turns itself off, it also turns off the macro setting
and I don't understand why this was done. The other problem is that the
sometimes, when I go in very close, the auto focus tells me I am in
focus when I'm not.
It is also very good for street photography. Because it is so small,
many people react to it as if it was a cheap compact, all the time not
realising its ability to zoom. I have captured some rather nice candids
this way. The only problem with using it this way is that it takes a
few seconds to 'hunt' for a shot when I press the shutter, so I
sometimes lose shots. Putting it into continuous mode sometimes help,
but I don't like to 'burn' memory in this way unless I have something
specific in mind, such as capturing a street performance; it allowed me
to capture a fire juggler without his knowledge simply because I could
stay far enough away that he didn't even know I was taking a picture,
until he turned and saw me and then he only thought I was going to
approach him to take a picture.
>
>So, - will you be doing more of the same do you reckon ? I would be
>interested to see some more in the same vein.
I have something planned, but I'm keeping it a secret. I have almost
everything prepared for the shot, and merely need a bit more work before
I am ready for it. These non-computer graphic special effects shots
need quite a bit more 'backroom' work, but can be more satisfying,
because it takes more ingenuity to do them. Are you thinking of having
a go yourself? I hope so, because if you are, I'd like to see the
picture.
>
>
>
>
>(BTW - I like "Red on Red by Red" especially.)
Thanks: that was one of my 'Red' moods. I would really like to see your
pictures so let me know how I can.
>
>
>Rachael
>
>
Rachael Nex
> Rachael Nex <often...@theendofthebar.com> on Fri, 13 Sep 2002 at
> 20:11:16 posted the following on uk.rec.photo.misc:
>
> >
> >"egd" <e...@ysbaddaden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:lrOXCAB9...@ysbaddaden.demon.co.uk...
> >> I don't mean to tout myself, but I have done something rather
> >> innovative, for me at least, with a special effects shot, and what I am
> >> looking for are opinions on it, particularly in-depth ones. I did the
> >> shot without using computer graphics, in the vein of good old-fashioned
> >> science fiction film shots, and I am aiming to improve this technique.
> >>
> >> I have posted the pic on the photoSig site, but, while I have had some
> >> response there, it hasn't been as useful as I would have hoped. Here
is
> >> the URL; even if you don't like this shot, please let me know what you
> >> think:
> >>
> >> Io Landing
> >> http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=290574
> >>
> >>
> ><de-lurk>
> >
> >
> >I get the impression you want critique from pros or semi pros (which I am
> >neither) but I'll offer a (late) comment anyway.
>
> No, I wanted opinions from anyone who cared to look at the picture. I'm
> hardly a pro or even a semi-pro myself. Thanks for taking the time to
> give your constructive criticism and I apologise for taking so long to
> reply but I have been out and about taking photos and time just slipped
> away from me.
>
I know that feeling. I seem to have a camera stuck to my eye pretty
permanently at the moment. Perhaps I should consider a Borg type implant.
;-)
> >
> >Apart from looking like it is the cake of the devil ;-) ("Fruit Cake in
> >Hell" could be its alternative title), I like it. It *does* look very
early
> >Star Trek (which, as we all know, borrowed heavily from sf b movies that
> >boldy went in the same direction before). Taken in that context it is
very
> >pleasing.
> >
> Thank you: that's what I wanted to know, whether it worked or not as a
> sci-fi effect as that's what I was attempting. I was thinking more of
> 'Doctor Who' than Star Trek, but both featured effects of this nature at
> one time or the other.
It was part of their charm, indeed. The hokey effects of Doctor Who were
made much less cringeworthy by the wonderful work of the BBC Radiophonic
Workshop, though, IMO. The incidental music often made the whol atmosphere
of some of the special effects more believable, if you get my drift.
>
>
> >And of course, I appreciate it because it was taken with the FP2800z,
which
> >is currently the camera I have. I've been taking (experimental and very
> >weird, by all accounts) macro shots of flowers in a clear blue watering
can
> >this afternoon, - so I'm all for experimental shots.
>
> I would very much like to see your pictures. Have you submitted any to
> photoSig? Do you have a web site?
I do indeed. It is www.badrats.co.uk, which is a site about pet rats (yes -
really !) but the not-very-good pictures can be found at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rachaelnex/gallery.htm. I say "not very good"
becase well, to not gild the lily, I am of significant visual impairment and
a novice photographer, which means I have not only got alot to learn about
photography but I often can't see sh#t either !
The experimental "things in a blue wateringcan" shots may be up there later
today (read: if I remember to put them up). Most of the pictures are nature
shots but there are some odd shots of odd things too.
> I am very interested in all that can
> be done with this particular camera. I have been trying every type of
> shot of which I can think and for which I have the resources. It's a
> good camera for many purposes. I like it for taking macro shots, with
> it's easy to use close-up feature; the only problem I have with this is
> that if the camera turns itself off, it also turns off the macro setting
> and I don't understand why this was done.
Yes - that is an annoyance. The other issue I have with it is that you can't
use the self timer on manual mode. How dumb is that ? For night shots on a
tripod the self timer is often vital (or indeed any shot where the slightest
bit of camera shake would be a real problem) - argh. It makes me wonder
*why* this sort of thing was overlooked.
The other problem is that the
> sometimes, when I go in very close, the auto focus tells me I am in
> focus when I'm not.
Indeed - I find this a big problem also as often I can't tell whether the
shot is in focus or not - I rely heavily on the the AF. Sometimes it gets it
utterly wrong and I only find out when I view the shot on the PC. Groan.
>
> It is also very good for street photography. Because it is so small,
> many people react to it as if it was a cheap compact, all the time not
> realising its ability to zoom. I have captured some rather nice candids
> this way. The only problem with using it this way is that it takes a
> few seconds to 'hunt' for a shot when I press the shutter, so I
> sometimes lose shots. Putting it into continuous mode sometimes help,
> but I don't like to 'burn' memory in this way unless I have something
> specific in mind, such as capturing a street performance; it allowed me
> to capture a fire juggler without his knowledge simply because I could
> stay far enough away that he didn't even know I was taking a picture,
> until he turned and saw me and then he only thought I was going to
> approach him to take a picture.
The zoom is a real gem, for sure. I love it for many reasons - I often take
shots of animals and butterflies and whatnot and it helps to be able to be
far away, of course, to avoid alarming them.
I think you are correct about people's attitudes to cameras - I've noticed
people find obviously capable cameras somewhat intimidating at times (I
certainly do) - the more pro looking the kit, the worse that feeling can
become. The 2800 is abit of a wolf in sheep's clothing in that respect.
I had a smile about your shot of the dice belt on the young lady's behind
btw - I admit I would never dare take (nor never think of taking, to be
honest) such a shot. I assume she had no idea you were there, and certainly
no idea you had a camera ?
I think of how I would react if I were her, if I had seen you - if you'd had
a big black scary camera pointed at my bum I would have punched you on the
nose. ;-) But I'd have been more likely to just ask you what the hell you
were doing (but with more colourful language ;-) ) as you had a small and
inoffensive looking silver camera like the 2800z - if I didn't know its
capabilities of course. I would have thought "Oh - he wouldn't have got
anything with *that*." Which is what makes the 2800z such a good camera for
candid shots, as you say.
>
> >
> >So, - will you be doing more of the same do you reckon ? I would be
> >interested to see some more in the same vein.
>
> I have something planned, but I'm keeping it a secret.
Intrigue. We love it !
> I have almost
> everything prepared for the shot, and merely need a bit more work before
> I am ready for it. These non-computer graphic special effects shots
> need quite a bit more 'backroom' work, but can be more satisfying,
> because it takes more ingenuity to do them.
Absolutely. I am still wondering exactly how you did the Io Landing shot -
*is* it a fruitcake under the grill ? Or would you prefer to keep your
techniques secret ? ;-)
Are you thinking of having
> a go yourself? I hope so, because if you are, I'd like to see the
> picture.
I've done a few odd things, as I say - but they've mostly been the result of
being bored, wanting to take pictures, and not being able to get outside to
take any (as my principle subjects are flowers / insects / animals).
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >(BTW - I like "Red on Red by Red" especially.)
>
> Thanks: that was one of my 'Red' moods. I would really like to see your
> pictures so let me know how I can.
>
As I said, I have some on my website - I prefer to keep them there as
opposed to a photosig sort of enviroment because to be honest, being a
novice and being of visual impairment makes me abit of a chicken when it
comes to showing my stuff to others. But at the same time I don't want to be
babied because I am visually disabled.
Learning from others is how we progress afterall. The problem is, I
understand that there are many areas in which I need to improve, but I'm not
sure how to do that in view of my eyesight problem - I am wary that I will
get advice from other photographers that will not be applicable to me
because I am hitting photographic problems that are down to my eyesight
being bad, rather than things I can actually do anything about, and the
normal advice one would get (for composition issues, focusing issues,
contrast issues - that sort of thing) may not be something I can always act
on. I don't know how to improve my photography with the eyes I am stuck
with (which is, basically, very little central vision but decent peripheral,
some colour / contrast loss, focusing issues). Does that make any sense ?
Rachael
Pat Chaney
> As I said, I have some on my website - I prefer to keep them there as
> opposed to a photosig sort of enviroment because to be honest, being a
> novice and being of visual impairment makes me abit of a chicken when it
> comes to showing my stuff to others. But at the same time I don't want to be
> babied because I am visually disabled.
The two shots of your dog licking your face are better than many I've seen
by photographers with perfect vision - they capture the moment in a way that
is rarely seen, and you should be proud of them.
You have quite a talent for poetry too.
Pat
--
Photos at:
http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251
SteveR
>>SteveR <st...@grandfathersaxe.demon.co.uk> observed
>>However your comment is valid for much of my stuff. I get close with
>>the camera, get to the darkroom/computer and trim loads off, print,
>>trim again. Then of course I run into quality problems...... :(
>>
>>>The pilings
>>>themselves are very interesting.
>>Yes.
>>>
>>>So as to avoid accusations of cowardice, of being afraid of letting you
>>>see my own work, here is the relevant link:
>>> http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=35348
>>
>>OK, more later.....
>
>.......So replying to my own posting.....
>
>Having only a dial-up account I find the photosig site frustrating in
>the time it takes to download the pictures, as a result I only managed
>about three pictures in fifteen minutes. Even the thumbnails took a lot
>of time. (As someone else mentioned my pictures supper from compression
>artifacts, but at least one can get to see them quickly!!) How big are
>those files?
The pictures I've submitted have varied from about 64KB up to slightly
more than 330KB. photoSIG has a hard limit of 360K, but that's still
quite a lump over 56K dial-up (especially when it's only really 40K-44K,
like it is for me).
>I really liked the tree with evening sunshine, but accept the comments
>made about it's not being interesting enough in composition. I was
>struggling trying to get some trees against a sunset recently, and
>faced the same problem, so I understand. You sky graduations are super.
I get the sky like that by making sure that the camera gets a good look
at the sky (so as to underexpose the skyline to black), just (10-15
minutes or so seems about right) after sunset. I was pleased with the
result in this shot, and cropped it like that on purpose, so I was a bit
disappointed at the reaction. Oh, well, you live and you learn...
>Next I enjoyed the Oxford (was it) group of people. As an inveterate
>street photographer myself, I know how satisfying it is when the
>figures hang together neatly. In your picture the eye goes round and
>round and back to the slightly out of focus man looking directly at the
>camera.
It was Oxford - there's so many different people wandering around the
city centre on a summer weekend that it's often hard to find a moment
when nobody's walking in front of you. This one was actually taken at
nearly five o'clock on a Saturday, so the place had calmed down a bit.
>Anyway you've made me decide to put up some of my very best photos from
>over the years into a special gallery with larger file sizes so the
>detail and quality may be seen.
That sounds good. Let us know where it is when you put it up.
>And just one further comment on egd's photos - I though the man
>painting the window was wonderful! At first I wanted tighter cropping,
>but I tried that and preferred the way you had it as the balance was
>just right. Again another spontaneous shot that really works. The
>decisive moment indeed!
>
>I haven't commented *on* the photosig site itself, everything was so
>sluggish that I haven't registered. But thanks for drawing my attention
>to it.
It's a very busy site, and I suspect the server's working near its limit
at peak times - the peak seems to be early evening US time, or late
night over here. The busyness is one of its main drawbacks, as pictures
disappear off the first couple of pages of new photos very quickly,
which can mean they don't get the attention they deserve. On the plus
side, they allow larger pictures, both in pixel size and byte count,
than some of the other photo critique sites.
egd
15:48:17 posted the following on uk.rec.photo.misc:
I do indeed. That and some of the over-acting, particularly when Tom
Baker played The Doctor.
>>
>>
>> >And of course, I appreciate it because it was taken with the FP2800z,
>which
>> >is currently the camera I have. I've been taking (experimental and very
>> >weird, by all accounts) macro shots of flowers in a clear blue watering
>can
>> >this afternoon, - so I'm all for experimental shots.
>>
>> I would very much like to see your pictures. Have you submitted any to
>> photoSig? Do you have a web site?
>
>I do indeed. It is www.badrats.co.uk, which is a site about pet rats (yes -
>really !) but the not-very-good pictures can be found at
>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rachaelnex/gallery.htm. I say "not very good"
>becase well, to not gild the lily, I am of significant visual impairment and
>a novice photographer, which means I have not only got alot to learn about
>photography but I often can't see sh#t either !
I've had a look at your site and you are much better than you make
yourself out to be. I like your innovative spirit. I don't see any
trace of any visual impairment in any of the shots. In particular I
like the shot of the flowers in the blue watering can. Very nice, very
colourful. The silhouette of your dog was very good as well. You have
a good eye for composition and colour. You also have a way of turning
the ordinary into the extraordinary. Well done.
>
>The experimental "things in a blue wateringcan" shots may be up there later
>today (read: if I remember to put them up). Most of the pictures are nature
>shots but there are some odd shots of odd things too.
I haven't had the time yet to do a really in-depth critique of your
photos, but I will, if you like. I'm just a newbie photographer, but I
think I have helped a few people with my comments, at least some people
on the photoSig site have written to me to say so. Further, I have
learned quite a bit from having to comment on the work of others.
>
>> I am very interested in all that can
>> be done with this particular camera. I have been trying every type of
>> shot of which I can think and for which I have the resources. It's a
>> good camera for many purposes. I like it for taking macro shots, with
>> it's easy to use close-up feature; the only problem I have with this is
>> that if the camera turns itself off, it also turns off the macro setting
>> and I don't understand why this was done.
>
>Yes - that is an annoyance. The other issue I have with it is that you can't
>use the self timer on manual mode. How dumb is that ? For night shots on a
>tripod the self timer is often vital (or indeed any shot where the slightest
>bit of camera shake would be a real problem) - argh. It makes me wonder
>*why* this sort of thing was overlooked.
Why? Because it makes you want to go out and buy the more expensive
version, says my cynical mind.
>
It also won't use manual settings for the continuous mode, which is very
annoying when I'm trying to take shots of a moving targets, such as
people marching in a parade or street performers. I haven't had bad
results or anything from using continuous, but I think I could have
better if it would preserve my manual settings.
>
> The other problem is that the
>> sometimes, when I go in very close, the auto focus tells me I am in
>> focus when I'm not.
>
>Indeed - I find this a big problem also as often I can't tell whether the
>shot is in focus or not - I rely heavily on the the AF. Sometimes it gets it
>utterly wrong and I only find out when I view the shot on the PC. Groan.
I'm thinking of running an experiment this weekend, if I have time, to
determine the depth of field when I use the macro. If I have any
results that mean anything, I'll let you know. I plan to use this
information, if it works, to set up a little chain or string on the
camera strap so that I can instantly judge the 'not closer than this'
distance using the macro. This is the sort of thing one used to find
(and perhaps still do) on the Minox cameras, but for different reasons,
of course.
>
>>
>> It is also very good for street photography. Because it is so small,
>> many people react to it as if it was a cheap compact, all the time not
>> realising its ability to zoom. I have captured some rather nice candids
>> this way. The only problem with using it this way is that it takes a
>> few seconds to 'hunt' for a shot when I press the shutter, so I
>> sometimes lose shots. Putting it into continuous mode sometimes help,
>> but I don't like to 'burn' memory in this way unless I have something
>> specific in mind, such as capturing a street performance; it allowed me
>> to capture a fire juggler without his knowledge simply because I could
>> stay far enough away that he didn't even know I was taking a picture,
>> until he turned and saw me and then he only thought I was going to
>> approach him to take a picture.
>
>The zoom is a real gem, for sure. I love it for many reasons - I often take
>shots of animals and butterflies and whatnot and it helps to be able to be
>far away, of course, to avoid alarming them.
>
>I think you are correct about people's attitudes to cameras - I've noticed
>people find obviously capable cameras somewhat intimidating at times (I
>certainly do) - the more pro looking the kit, the worse that feeling can
>become. The 2800 is abit of a wolf in sheep's clothing in that respect.
>I had a smile about your shot of the dice belt on the young lady's behind
>btw - I admit I would never dare take (nor never think of taking, to be
>honest) such a shot. I assume she had no idea you were there, and certainly
>no idea you had a camera ?
She had no idea I was there: I think her boyfriend spotted the woman
with the camera (me), but didn't think anything of it. I took the shot
because I knew she was out there, dressed like that to be seen and so
she has been now. If she was out in the street like that, then anyone
can see her and she was caught on I don't know how many CCTV cameras, so
what's wrong with me taking a picture? I thought it would liven up my
photoSig portfolio a bit. Certainly has been visited many times.
>I think of how I would react if I were her, if I had seen you - if you'd had
>a big black scary camera pointed at my bum I would have punched you on the
>nose. ;-) But I'd have been more likely to just ask you what the hell you
>were doing (but with more colourful language ;-) )
As I said, she was out there to be seen. She can't pick and choose who
sees her and what they think or, in this case, do.
> as you had a small and
>inoffensive looking silver camera like the 2800z - if I didn't know its
>capabilities of course. I would have thought "Oh - he wouldn't have got
>anything with *that*." Which is what makes the 2800z such a good camera for
>candid shots, as you say.
That's the beauty of it. I have been caught a few times taking a shot.
I put one of the pics where I was caught on photoSig. I have heard that
some people think that taking candid pictures is unethical. My view is
that I only take pictures of people in public places and if someone is
out there, then my camera is no different from my eyes and memory and if
I can see it and my mind record it, then my camera can record it as
well. Candid shots are really the only way we can see people as they
are and not how they would like to be seen.
>
>>
>> >
>> >So, - will you be doing more of the same do you reckon ? I would be
>> >interested to see some more in the same vein.
>>
>> I have something planned, but I'm keeping it a secret.
>
>Intrigue. We love it !
It will be ready soon. I will try to find the time to shoot it this
weekend.
>
>> I have almost
>> everything prepared for the shot, and merely need a bit more work before
>> I am ready for it. These non-computer graphic special effects shots
>> need quite a bit more 'backroom' work, but can be more satisfying,
>> because it takes more ingenuity to do them.
>
>Absolutely. I am still wondering exactly how you did the Io Landing shot -
>*is* it a fruitcake under the grill ? Or would you prefer to keep your
>techniques secret ? ;-)
Oh, I thought I mentioned my method in my comments on photoSig. Never
mind, here it is: I baked the fruit bread (whole-wheat flour, salt,
honey, whole blackberries, honey), and when it had cooled, I cut a bit
off of one end to make a horizon. I then oiled four long sheets of
cling film, using olive oil because it gives a better cast than plain
vegetable oil. I draped the oiled cling film over a string I had tied
between two chairs, in a manner such that they overlapped. I crinkled
the ends of the cling film, so that the oil and crinkles made
interesting patterns. I put the fruit bread on a sack (very non-
reflective) which was on a cardboard box. This was in front of the two
chairs. The fruit cake was placed towards the front of the box, leaving
a large gap between it and the background so that I could get the right
depth of field. Using an office lamp, which I placed behind the cling
film, and positioned so that its light went upwards, I lit the cling
film. I had all the lights in the flat on, and another light besides,
to provide adequate light for the shot itself. I put the camera on the
tripod and positioned it for depth of field, pressed the shutter halfway
down, positioned the shot for composition, put the orange (Cokin No 2)
filter in front of the camera, and took the shot. I snapped many shots
and used the best one for my submission. It was that easy. :)
For these sorts of shots and others in the future, I am thinking of
making a frame for the FP2800Z to hold filters. It will increase the
capabilities of the camera.
>
> Are you thinking of having
>> a go yourself? I hope so, because if you are, I'd like to see the
>> picture.
>
>I've done a few odd things, as I say - but they've mostly been the result of
>being bored, wanting to take pictures, and not being able to get outside to
>take any (as my principle subjects are flowers / insects / animals).
>
Try food pictures: you can do many interesting things with food. I took
a shot of some tomatoes I had peeled, partially peeled and their skins,
and it turned out fairly well. I submitted it to photoSig under the
title of 'Skinned Red' in case you are interested.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >(BTW - I like "Red on Red by Red" especially.)
>>
>> Thanks: that was one of my 'Red' moods. I would really like to see your
>> pictures so let me know how I can.
>>
>As I said, I have some on my website - I prefer to keep them there as
>opposed to a photosig sort of enviroment because to be honest, being a
>novice and being of visual impairment makes me abit of a chicken when it
>comes to showing my stuff to others. But at the same time I don't want to be
>babied because I am visually disabled.
Don't worry about submitting to that site. It's useful but not the be
all and end all. They don't baby anyone there. I know the way to get a
good rating, of course, but it's against my principles to go about
giving loads of people a three thumbs up rating so that they feel
grateful enough to give a like rating to my pics. I prefer honesty.
I'm mainly on the site for what I can learn by doing critiques. I'm a
Last Chance Critic and I see all the shots that were, for some reason,
neglected. I see many good shots, some mediocre ones, and a very few
really bad ones. Mainly these are the shots that have slipped through
the cracks. By commenting like this upon pictures, I not only have to
put into words why I think something about a shot, but I learn many
things: things I want to do as well as things I don't want to do. I
have come up with many ideas looking at the pics of other people, and
have learned many things as well. I think I have also helped some
people. I submit photos because I don't think it is right to critique
people's work without putting my own on the line as well. PhotoSig's
policy is different from that and I think it is wrong, but we all have
to make compromises.
>Learning from others is how we progress afterall. The problem is, I
>understand that there are many areas in which I need to improve, but I'm not
>sure how to do that in view of my eyesight problem - I am wary that I will
>get advice from other photographers that will not be applicable to me
>because I am hitting photographic problems that are down to my eyesight
>being bad, rather than things I can actually do anything about, and the
>normal advice one would get (for composition issues, focusing issues,
>contrast issues - that sort of thing) may not be something I can always act
>on. I don't know how to improve my photography with the eyes I am stuck
>with (which is, basically, very little central vision but decent peripheral,
>some colour / contrast loss, focusing issues). Does that make any sense ?
>
>
I think I see the problem: you can see things better out of the corner
of your eyes rather than if they are in front of you? Am I on the right
track? If so, then using the LCD screen to shot pictures rather than
the viewer might help; it's a drain on the batteries, to be certain, but
if needs must, then it might help. I don't see any problems with your
pictures, though, so you are compensating for your visual impairment
nicely. Perhaps you are more worried about it than you need to be. Try
submitting some pics to some critique site without mentioning your
problem and see how people react. You might be surprised. I certainly
wouldn't have known about any problem unless you had told me.
As soon as I have the time, as I said, if you like, I'll do an in-depth
critique on your pics. I'm not being arrogant here: we can both learn
from this and perhaps I can put your worries to rest.
Chris Savage
+0100 when I was in uk.rec.photo.misc and Michael J Davis
<mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> said:
>Having only a dial-up account I find the photosig site frustrating in
>the time it takes to download the pictures, as a result I only managed
>about three pictures in fifteen minutes. Even the thumbnails took a lot
>of time. (As someone else mentioned my pictures supper from compression
>artifacts, but at least one can get to see them quickly!!) How big are
>those files?
Having only a 512k DSL connection I find the photosig site takes
forever to do nothing. Frequent refreshes required as it fails to
deliver images or entire pages.
Is it always this bad?
--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Solihull, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg
Rachael Nex
> Rachael Nex <often...@theendofthebar.com> on Mon, 16 Sep 2002 at
> 15:48:17 posted the following on uk.rec.photo.misc:
<snip>
> >
> >It was part of their charm, indeed. The hokey effects of Doctor Who were
> >made much less cringeworthy by the wonderful work of the BBC Radiophonic
> >Workshop, though, IMO. The incidental music often made the whol
atmosphere
> >of some of the special effects more believable, if you get my drift.
> >
>
> I do indeed. That and some of the over-acting, particularly when Tom
> Baker played The Doctor.
Heh heh - yes, he never took himself seriously at all I think.
<snip>
> >
> >I do indeed. It is www.badrats.co.uk, which is a site about pet rats
(yes -
> >really !) but the not-very-good pictures can be found at
> >http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rachaelnex/gallery.htm. I say "not very
good"
> >becase well, to not gild the lily, I am of significant visual impairment
and
> >a novice photographer, which means I have not only got alot to learn
about
> >photography but I often can't see sh#t either !
>
> I've had a look at your site and you are much better than you make
> yourself out to be. I like your innovative spirit. I don't see any
> trace of any visual impairment in any of the shots. In particular I
> like the shot of the flowers in the blue watering can. Very nice, very
> colourful. The silhouette of your dog was very good as well. You have
> a good eye for composition and colour. You also have a way of turning
> the ordinary into the extraordinary. Well done.
Thankyou. People have venutured to say that being half blind probably makes
me more likely to "see" things rather than not, when it comes to photography
this is - because I have to look so much harder at things in the course of
everyday life just to maintain a useful level of vision. I'm not sure if
that is true but I do know one thing - I've had visual impairment problems
since I was twenty one, before the days of affordable digital cameras, so I
thought my photographing days were over (couldn't afford the mistakes I kept
making when I had to develop film - it was going to bankrupt me !). I got my
first digital camera three years ago, and was bought the 2800z as a gift in
July this year - and I can honestly say that taking pictures digitally has
made me realise what I *can* see, whereas before I was often struck in
lamenting about what I couldn't. And of course, I can now take pictures of
things, come home and blow them up into huge jpgs on the monitor and see all
the stuff I could never see in real life. It's been an eye opener in the
truest meaning of the phrase !
>
> >
> >The experimental "things in a blue wateringcan" shots may be up there
later
> >today (read: if I remember to put them up). Most of the pictures are
nature
> >shots but there are some odd shots of odd things too.
>
> I haven't had the time yet to do a really in-depth critique of your
> photos, but I will, if you like. I'm just a newbie photographer, but I
> think I have helped a few people with my comments, at least some people
> on the photoSig site have written to me to say so. Further, I have
> learned quite a bit from having to comment on the work of others.
That would be beneficial, thanks.
<snip>
> >
> >Yes - that is an annoyance. The other issue I have with it is that you
can't
> >use the self timer on manual mode. How dumb is that ? For night shots on
a
> >tripod the self timer is often vital (or indeed any shot where the
slightest
> >bit of camera shake would be a real problem) - argh. It makes me wonder
> >*why* this sort of thing was overlooked.
>
> Why? Because it makes you want to go out and buy the more expensive
> version, says my cynical mind.
You're probably not far from the truth either. It worked on me anyway - next
camera purchase will probably be a Nikon Coolpix 5700 rather than a Fuji
though.
>
>
> >
>
> It also won't use manual settings for the continuous mode, which is very
> annoying when I'm trying to take shots of a moving targets, such as
> people marching in a parade or street performers. I haven't had bad
> results or anything from using continuous, but I think I could have
> better if it would preserve my manual settings.
Quite. I've done some continuous mode shooting with my dog (whilst he has
been playing "bring Daddy down by pretending to be a police dog" ;-) ) and
the manual settings would improve the shots no end I feel - particularly in
the definition and contrast of his fur.
>
> >
> > The other problem is that the
> >> sometimes, when I go in very close, the auto focus tells me I am in
> >> focus when I'm not.
> >
> >Indeed - I find this a big problem also as often I can't tell whether the
> >shot is in focus or not - I rely heavily on the the AF. Sometimes it gets
it
> >utterly wrong and I only find out when I view the shot on the PC. Groan.
>
> I'm thinking of running an experiment this weekend, if I have time, to
> determine the depth of field when I use the macro. If I have any
> results that mean anything, I'll let you know. I plan to use this
> information, if it works, to set up a little chain or string on the
> camera strap so that I can instantly judge the 'not closer than this'
> distance using the macro. This is the sort of thing one used to find
> (and perhaps still do) on the Minox cameras, but for different reasons,
> of course.
That would be useful - I've fallen foul of dof in macro mode a few times
(shots on the website of the marbles and rocks show this particularly). Let
me know if you get a result.
<snip>
> >I think you are correct about people's attitudes to cameras - I've
noticed
> >people find obviously capable cameras somewhat intimidating at times (I
> >certainly do) - the more pro looking the kit, the worse that feeling can
> >become. The 2800 is abit of a wolf in sheep's clothing in that respect.
> >I had a smile about your shot of the dice belt on the young lady's behind
> >btw - I admit I would never dare take (nor never think of taking, to be
> >honest) such a shot. I assume she had no idea you were there, and
certainly
> >no idea you had a camera ?
>
> She had no idea I was there: I think her boyfriend spotted the woman
> with the camera (me), but didn't think anything of it.
Aaah - prolly because it was a woman with a camera, not a bloke. Undoubtedly
abit sexist but true.
> I took the shot
> because I knew she was out there, dressed like that to be seen and so
> she has been now. If she was out in the street like that, then anyone
> can see her and she was caught on I don't know how many CCTV cameras, so
> what's wrong with me taking a picture? I thought it would liven up my
> photoSig portfolio a bit. Certainly has been visited many times.
I woudn't say there was anything wrong with taking a picture - I just
wouldn't do it myself,. I can't exactly say why - one reason would be I am
not particularly interested in taking photographs of people. I wouldn't like
a photgraph of my bum to be displayed to anyone without my knowledge (I hate
having my photograph taken, which is probably like a pastry chef saying she
hates cakes) so I wouldn't do it to someone else. Then again, I wouldn't
dress in that sort of outfit either (not saying there's anything wrong with
it - but I prefer to blend into the background rather than stick out !) so I
doubt anyone ever will take a photgraph of my bum. ;-)
>
>
> >I think of how I would react if I were her, if I had seen you - if you'd
had
> >a big black scary camera pointed at my bum I would have punched you on
the
> >nose. ;-) But I'd have been more likely to just ask you what the hell you
> >were doing (but with more colourful language ;-) )
>
> As I said, she was out there to be seen. She can't pick and choose who
> sees her and what they think or, in this case, do.
Well, I guess it's down to personal opinion really - but in the case of
photograhpy, it's an issue I don't have to confront because I just don't do
people. I have even been known to ask cats if I can take their picture (they
either stay or go, which is answer enough for me). Slightly eccentric
behaviour I know but there you go. <smile>
>
> > as you had a small and
> >inoffensive looking silver camera like the 2800z - if I didn't know its
> >capabilities of course. I would have thought "Oh - he wouldn't have got
> >anything with *that*." Which is what makes the 2800z such a good camera
for
> >candid shots, as you say.
>
> That's the beauty of it. I have been caught a few times taking a shot.
> I put one of the pics where I was caught on photoSig.
I think that the fact that the saw you made the shot - did you continue
after being spotted or stop ?
>I have heard that
> some people think that taking candid pictures is unethical. My view is
> that I only take pictures of people in public places and if someone is
> out there, then my camera is no different from my eyes and memory and if
> I can see it and my mind record it, then my camera can record it as
> well. Candid shots are really the only way we can see people as they
> are and not how they would like to be seen.
That's probably the area where the problem is for most people.
<snippy>
> >
> >Absolutely. I am still wondering exactly how you did the Io Landing
shot -
> >*is* it a fruitcake under the grill ? Or would you prefer to keep your
> >techniques secret ? ;-)
>
> Oh, I thought I mentioned my method in my comments on photoSig.
I don't recall seeing it in the Io Landing story thingy, so if you did
somewhere else I must have missed it.
<snip fruitbread shots technique>
I snapped many shots
> and used the best one for my submission. It was that easy. :)
Easy - surely you jest ? I must say, you have an excellent imagination for
such things. Tell me - did you come up with idea for the end result of the
shot first and then work out how to do it - or did you look at the
fruitbread and think "That looks like a planet ?" Or a combination of both ?
Or neither ? I'm fascinated.
>
> For these sorts of shots and others in the future, I am thinking of
> making a frame for the FP2800Z to hold filters. It will increase the
> capabilities of the camera.
I have a set of filters (colour, sepia, light pointy things - very technical
I know - that sort of stuff) kicking about (hopefully not literally)
somewhere - my father bought them on a whim for his old Zenit E SLR (now
passed to me since he got tired of it). I really must ask the husband to
have a look in the attic for them. I have though that for static setup shots
a workbench with (padded) clamps - like a cheap and cheerful pseudo workmate
(apparently available at B & Q for a tenner, so a friend tells me, though I
do have such a thing already) - would be good for shots using flters - it
would enable the camera and the filter to be held steady without the need
for a frame to fit the camera. Which would be pretty useless for shots taken
anywhere other than on the bench but I have been mulling the idea over abit.
> >
>
> Try food pictures: you can do many interesting things with food. I took
> a shot of some tomatoes I had peeled, partially peeled and their skins,
> and it turned out fairly well. I submitted it to photoSig under the
> title of 'Skinned Red' in case you are interested.
I like that one, it is lit very well I feel, very softly, - though I admit
that my first thought on seeing it wasn't anything to do with the
photograph - it was "Dinner !" Food photos always make my stomach growl !
I did some pretty standard leaf / horsechestnut shots yesterday - but what
has really intrigued me of late is boiling water. I have a Vision saucepan
(glass thing, sepia toned) which looks interesting with water boiling in it
but I can't seem to get the focus right.
<snippy>
> >>
> >As I said, I have some on my website - I prefer to keep them there as
> >opposed to a photosig sort of enviroment because to be honest, being a
> >novice and being of visual impairment makes me abit of a chicken when it
> >comes to showing my stuff to others. But at the same time I don't want to
be
> >babied because I am visually disabled.
>
> Don't worry about submitting to that site. It's useful but not the be
> all and end all. They don't baby anyone there. I know the way to get a
> good rating, of course, but it's against my principles to go about
> giving loads of people a three thumbs up rating so that they feel
> grateful enough to give a like rating to my pics. I prefer honesty.
My thoughts entirely. Ego stroking is all very well but I doubt anyone
learns much from it.
>
> I'm mainly on the site for what I can learn by doing critiques. I'm a
> Last Chance Critic and I see all the shots that were, for some reason,
> neglected. I see many good shots, some mediocre ones, and a very few
> really bad ones. Mainly these are the shots that have slipped through
> the cracks. By commenting like this upon pictures, I not only have to
> put into words why I think something about a shot, but I learn many
> things: things I want to do as well as things I don't want to do. I
> have come up with many ideas looking at the pics of other people, and
> have learned many things as well. I think I have also helped some
> people. I submit photos because I don't think it is right to critique
> people's work without putting my own on the line as well. PhotoSig's
> policy is different from that and I think it is wrong, but we all have
> to make compromises.
I regularly look at a few sites similar to photosig and I do feel I learn
alot from other people's work. But I've never critiqued (is that a real word
?) anything by anyone to be honest. I wouldn't feel it fair, as you say, to
do so without offering up my own stuff for perusal, but I don't feel ready
for that just yet. That and I often can't explain *why* I like something
(I'm much better at explaining why I don't !)
<snippy again>
> >
> >
> I think I see the problem: you can see things better out of the corner
> of your eyes rather than if they are in front of you? Am I on the right
> track?
Yes - that's exactly it.
> If so, then using the LCD screen to shot pictures rather than
> the viewer might help; it's a drain on the batteries, to be certain, but
> if needs must, then it might help.
I've tried it - but I suffer from not being able to see the LCD in bright
light (not a problem confined to the visually impaired, it must be said) and
not being able to get close enough to the LCD to be able to see the yellow
focus guides without being right up to the camera anyway - in which case, I
might as well use the EVF. I can shift my blind spots around abit by looking
out of the corner of my eye (if that makes sense - it's difficult to
explain) - which enables me to see stuff bit by bit in order to tell whether
the object of the shot is in the frame or not (though it doesn't always work
for shots that need to be taken right now with no messing about because it
takes time to do, even when you're used to doing it as I have gotten used to
doing it, and it doens't work for shots that are brightly lit from the side
or the front - the light just gets scrambled bouncing about on my damaged
retinas I think, and I can't make out a damn thing), but I still have focus
problems whatever I do - which is the unavoidable downside of being very
myopic to the level that even specialist contacts are not enough to sort it
absolutely. But hey-ho, there you go.
> I don't see any problems with your
> pictures, though, so you are compensating for your visual impairment
> nicely.
Either I am or Paint Shop Pro is giving me a hand <wink> but I appreciate
the sentiment, thankyou.
> Perhaps you are more worried about it than you need to be. Try
> submitting some pics to some critique site without mentioning your
> problem and see how people react. You might be surprised. I certainly
> wouldn't have known about any problem unless you had told me.
>
> As soon as I have the time, as I said, if you like, I'll do an in-depth
> critique on your pics. I'm not being arrogant here: we can both learn
> from this and perhaps I can put your worries to rest.
That would be helpful.
I resist the temptation to take older ones off the site as I get better (or
so I feel anyway) because although I can look at older shots and go "Ouch -
that was crap !", I recognise that at the time I liked them and just because
I now see why they weren't good, technically or whatever, doesn't mean I
shouldn't see them for what they are - which is, things Iiked at the time
and learned from, and will continue to learn form (as once-favourite shots
will always be superceded by better ones, I think, as we are all learning
all the time - if you see what I mean).
I await your next special effects project with interest !
Rachael
p.s. I feel tomato sauce will feature in tonight's dinner. Your food shots
obviously work on me on a subliminal (or not so, depending on how you look
at it) level !
Liz
Chris Savage <092002...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Having only a 512k DSL connection I find the photosig site takes
> forever to do nothing. Frequent refreshes required as it fails to
> deliver images or entire pages.
>
> Is it always this bad?
I got onto this thread a bit late, but I just tried twice to get the
original image at the beginning of the thread. The whole page loaded fine,
but neither the original fetch not two refreshes would bring up the relevant
image.
I don't thnk I can be bothered to write down the URL and go upstairs to the
pc to try again.
Liz
--
Virtual Liz at http://www.v-liz.co.uk
Safaris (Kenya and Tanzania); NEW: Kenya 2002 'rushes' now up
"I speak of Africa and golden joys"
Tony Parkinson
> "Tony Parkinson" <NOSPAMar...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >7/10 . . . . . Must Try Harder !!
>
> Thanks! I always relish a challenge!
>
8^)
egd
posted the following on uk.rec.photo.misc:
<snip>
>>
>> I haven't had the time yet to do a really in-depth critique of your
>> photos, but I will, if you like. I'm just a newbie photographer, but I
>> think I have helped a few people with my comments, at least some people
>> on the photoSig site have written to me to say so. Further, I have
>> learned quite a bit from having to comment on the work of others.
>
>That would be beneficial, thanks.
I apologise for the delay, but I've been busy and then, because I was
out in too long trying to take shots of pheasants, I caught a bad chill.
I wanted to critique all your photos at once, but it was just a bit too
much for me, so I am working on it in sections. I'll reply to the rest
of what you wrote in another post, but I wanted to post this set of
critiques tonight. I have started with the first section in your photo
gallery: Rats. I am working on the nature shots, but I haven't finished
them yet. I'll then start on the other two. The reason it takes so
long is that I spend quite a bit of time examining each picture. I
don't do 'sound bite' critiques. I have also rated each picture using
the photoSig scale which goes from three thumbs down to three thumbs up
with no zero point. I am not all that happy with such a crude scale,
but I thought that if I rated your pics this way, you could have a look
at the critiques I have done on photoSig and compare them with what I
have said about your photos and that it would also allow you to compare
them with what others have said about other photos on that site. I have
also written a brief overview before each section, just to let you know
from where I am coming. Without further delay, here's the critique of
'Rats':
Overview:
The first thing I think of when I see the word 'rats' is 'poison'. The
next thing is the Fawlty Towers episode featuring the 'Siberian
Hamster'. After that, my mind fills with images of mazes and scientific
experiments. I had never really considered seriously rats as pets.
Well, these pictures have certainly shown me a different perspective of
the issue, though I must say that nothing is ever going to make me love
the creatures.
Note: there is a picture image I can't access: the picture between
'Hooch, the cute one' and 'Slinky Sammy'; I can see its thumbnail, but
whenever I click on the thumbnail, all I get is a Tiscali Services page
telling me that the page cannot be found.
*****
Picture Title: Blueboy the Rat
Critique: This is a good macro that shows viewers of this pic enough
detail without losing the whole shape of the rat. The depth of field is
very good: I can even see the little whiskers under the nose and each
claw on the rat's front feet is distinctive. There are reflections in
the rat's eyes, which is good, because this gives the eyes life. Well
done to the photographer for capturing the bluish-cast to the rat's
fur: it really stands out against the dark background and this isn't
easy to do. This blue cast ties the title of the picture to this rat:
'Blueboy' is the sort of name one might give to a rat with such fur.
The rat's position and the reflections in its eyes give it an
inquisitive, almost intelligent look, imparting some of the rat's
'personality'. The lighting is good: it is soft and clear: any harshness
would have been distracting in a close-up shot like this.
The background is good: it gives context in that it shows that this rat
isn't in a cage or a hole, but it doesn't distract the viewers' eyes
from the subject of this shot, the rat.
There are a few problems with this overall good picture, though, and
that is the reddish half-circle in the upper left-hand corner. It is
clearly something in the background, but it doesn't add anything to the
picture and distracts the eyes so it should be cropped. The bright bit
of background in the lower right-hand corner of the picture should
either have been covered up during the shot or darkened by some photo-
manipulation program afterwards, as it, too, is a bit distracting. If
this were a shot of a rat in the wild, these things would be less of a
problem, but as this is a 'posed' shot of a pet, then the photographer
had more control over them, so they become bigger problems.
Overall, as I said, a good picture, but it needs just a bit more work.
Rating: Two thumbs up
*****
Picture Title: Finn the Rat, playing on the bedspread
Critique: This is a sort of 'over the shoulder' close-up and it
generally works well. The rat's head is very sharp, catching the
inquisitive look that seems to be part of the nature of rats. There is
a good reflection in the one visible eye, showing viewers of this
picture that the rat is alive. I like the way the shape of the white
whiskers compliment the weave of the bedspread and seem almost to be
moving downwards to tunnel into it.
The composition is generally good with plenty of space being left in the
direction that the rat is facing, and the rat itself being shown at an
interesting angle. The lighting is not bad but may be a tad harsh for
this sort of shot as it has washed out a bit of the bedspread, with the
richer-coloured bit being in the darker, slightly out of focus area,
which is a same because the richer colour compliments the rat even
better than the slightly washed-out colour. Aside from this, the
background is good and I am glad to see details of the bedspread because
it gives this shot 'grounding', that is, context.
I am not quite as pleased with the depth of field: I find the slightly
blurry bit of fur in the lower left-hand corner to be a bit distracting.
Tighter cropping could have alleviated some of this, and also focussing
a bit further back on the rat. One other thing: the picture doesn't
quite match the title: the rat appears to be on the bedspread, yes, but
it doesn't appear to be playing. For it to appear to be playing, more
action would be needed and probably a shot taken further away.
It's a good picture, but not a great one at present. I realise that
rats probably don't easily pose for shots, so it isn't easy taking these
pictures, so I consider this a good effort.
Rating: Two thumbs up
*****
Picture Title: Hooch the Rat, playing on the bedspread.
Critique: This rat looks as if it has spotted something, but what cannot
be seen, giving this picture a bit of an air of mystery. I like the way
this rat's whiskers curl up around its face: it gives it an almost
comical air. There is a good reflection in the eye, an almost pin-prick
of light, that adds to this rather warm and funny perspective of a rat.
The composition is good, with there being plenty of space in the
direction that the rat is facing, although there may be a bit too much
space at the top of the picture. I like the way that the rat's shadow
was captured: it adds contrast and depth to, without it, would have
simply been a rat on a flat, rather contrastless bedspread.
The biggest problem with this shot is that it all seems a bit soft. It
may be the soft, pink cast of the light, but looking at the edges, they
really do seem just a tad soft. It's a pity as this tends to detract
from the shot. I'm not saying that shots all have to be completely
sharp, but this softness is too ambiguous: it looks as if it ought to be
sharp, but it isn't quite, so it is distracting.
It's a nice picture, but not a great one, mainly due to the sharpness.
Rating: Two thumbs up
*****
Picture Title: Micky Finn, the shifty looking rex boy
Critique: This rat certainly looks shifty, indeed, he looks rather
sinister and as if he is about to attack something. This is a good
close up and it really shows not only the details of the rat's head and
upper body, but it captures the sort of 'dark' personality that people
often associate with rats. In particular, I like the way that the
thinning fur on the side of the rat's head adds to this effect.
It's a pity that there isn't just a bit more shadow in this picture, as
it would heighten the sinister effect. The box and sawdust give this
picture context, but in this case, since it is the look of the rat that
is the subject, this context detracts rather than adds to the picture.
Further, something in the sawdust, something a bit greenish, seems to
almost be growing from Micky Finn's head and this is distracting.
The image is a strong one and it overcomes much but not all of the
distractions. A bit more moodiness would help this scene: if the
contrast in the box and sawdust was greatly darkened, say, that would
work nicely. Congratulations, though, on capturing such a strong image.
Rating: Two thumbs up
*****
Picture Title: Tarrow, looking moody
Critique: There's a nice play of light and shadows in this picture, with
the heavy shadows to the back and the right-hand side of the picture
being balanced by the yellow ball in the left-hand side of the picture.
The toy in the back almost glows with light and colour, making it look
to be some sort of sinister tower out of a fairy story.
While the light is certainly moody in this picture, unfortunately, it is
difficult to see the rat. I had to look for a moment to even find it
and when I did, I couldn't see that it was looking moody. Certainly it
was in moody surroundings, but it was too indistinct to have an
personality about it. Indeed, given the title, Tarrow should be the
subject of this picture, but since he is so indistinct, he isn't. There
is an empty bright spot in the middle of the cage where Tarrow should
occupy for a shot like this (perhaps part of him in the shadows and the
other part looking downwards, if, of course, he could have been captured
like that), but, as it is, that empty bright spot seems to symbolise the
missing subject of this picture. Another problem with this picture is
the cage wall and the outside area on the right-hand side: these are
very distracting, as not only do they take away from the mood that the
light and shadow creates in the cage, but they are also out of focus,
and a bit bright. They add nothing to the shot and should be cropped.
Unfortunately, not much can be done about the missing subject in this
pic.
This picture is a good attempt to capture the rat in moody surroundings,
but unfortunately, it doesn't quite work.
Rating: One thumb up
*****
Picture Title: Spider, wrestling with his bedding arrangements
Critique: This is an interesting picture, full of action, but it is hard
to judge because I think it has been munged a bit by a scanner or it has
been reduced a bit too much. I say this because it looks very grainy.
Despite this grain, I can clearly tell that the rat in question is
biting the toilet roll tube. Given the graininess, I can't tell whether
it has gripped the tube in its claws, but it probably has. The focus of
this picture is clearly the rat, although the white paper going to the
side takes the eyes a bit away from the subject. The rest of the
objects in the shot, however, give it context: they show that this is
where the rat is kept, and that it has a variety of toys, but, that at
the moment, it has chosen to play with the tube. The light looks good
and the depth of field right, although given the graininess, it is
difficult to tell.
It might have been better to zoom in a bit more on the rat, which would
have captured more of the action, and helped the rat stand out a bit
more against the light background, but nevertheless, it is a good image.
Although I think the image a strong one, because of the graininess, I
have to mark it down quite a bit.
Rating: One thumb up
*****
Picture Title: Mummy Pen and newborn babies
Critique: This must have been a difficult shot to take because no doubt
the mother rat in this picture didn't want to be disturbed too much.
The baby rats are captured well: I can see their details, colours, and
even enough differences to distinguish individuals. Well done.
If this shot were just of the babies, it would have been a great one.
However, the other parts of it, tend to be distracting. The babies'
mother nearby is distracting because she is slightly out of focus and
because she competes with the babies for the viewers' attention. It's
very much as if there are two pictures here: one with the mother in it,
and one with the babies. The other problem is that the picture is a bit
too bright and this too, is distracting.
As I said, I realise that this was probably a hurry-hurry shot, but it
would have been better if it could have focussed entirely on the
babies. If mother and babies were desired in the shot together, then
the mother should have been by the babies, perhaps letting them nurse.
As it is, they are too disconnected, and, given the title, it was
clearly not the aim to show the babies and mother as being separate.
This is a good attempt, but, given the competing centres of attention,
it doesn't quite work.
Rating: One thumb up
*****
Picture Title: Mummy and Tarrow
Critique: This is a very good picture. It clearly captures the
relationship between the woman (the photographer) and Tarrow. The dark
rat stands out very well against the shadows and the light on the
woman's face is soft, not harsh. Further, there's a good reflection in
the rat's eye and some nice highlights in the woman's hair.
This picture has a very good, atmospheric, soft feeling about it. I
like the tight cropping, and the way that the woman and the rat frame
each other. Enough is seen in this picture to show the relationship
between the woman and the rat, but no more, and so there is also an air
of mystery because viewers can't see any more of the context in which
this pair exist.
The colours compliment each other nicely: the woman's red hair on the
left-hand side of the picture balances the darkness on the right-hand
side. The blue of the woman's clothes compliments the dark colour of
the rat and of the shadows. This is a very good play of light, darkness
and colour.
This is a great picture and I like it very much. Artistically and
technically, I see no flaws.
Rating: Three thumbs up
*****
Picture Title: Mika making Mummy laugh
Critique: This is a nice picture. The action in it is implied, but not
entirely unambiguous: clearly the woman is laughing, and clearly the rat
on her shoulder is the cause of this, but it is not clear quite Mika is
causing the laughter simply by being on the shoulder. Given this, the
relationship between the woman and the rat is less clear here: the woman
likes this rat and finds something humorous in it or what it is doing,
but there isn't the sort of clear bond and strong image that there was
in 'Mummy and Tarrow'.
The background distracts a bit in this shot as well. It's not that
pictures shouldn't have background, but a semi-posed picture such as
this requires a bit more care to be taken, that's all. While the wall
in the background is mainly neutral, some dark bit of it seems to be
growing from the woman's head. Further, there is something on the
right-hand side of the picture that is too indistinct to show what it
is, but just distinct enough to keep the eyes looking, to see whether
there is some clue as to what it is. It doesn't add to the shot, which
is about the action between the rat and the woman, so it shouldn't be
there.
The play of light and shadows in this shot doesn't work as well as it
might. Certainly the rat and the woman stand out in the darkness, but
the woman's dark clothes have blocked up, and this may be the reason why
the action of the rat isn't clear.
All in all, it's a nice picture, with good potential, but the image just
doesn't come through as strongly as it might.
Rating: One thumb up
*****
Picture Title: Lovely Tera, cleaning up my leftovers
Critique: This is a very atmospheric shot. The rat almost looks human
here, the way her front legs are positioned on the bowl and the way her
body is bent forward. There's a good reflection in her eye as well.
The picture definitely matches the title, as it is clear that this bowl
has had food in it but now there is only bits here and there left. What
really makes it clear, though, that this isn't a bowl left out for the
rat, which it is just finishing off, is the bit of cutlery left in the
bowl: rats don't use cutlery, but people do. Very nice and necessary
touch. The background is interesting, and although some might think it
distracting, I think it adds to the picture. The words 'The Message',
on a book or something, give one the impression that there is some sort
of message in this picture or ought to be. It adds a surrealistic air
to the scene. The other bits in the background give the picture
context: this is clearly a kitchen counter.
The light is what lets this picture down just a bit: it's a bit harsh on
the right-hand side of the picture, with just a bit of the edge of the
bowl being burnt out. I realise that given it was the only light
source, it needed to be strong, but use of a diffuser would have
softened it a bit without detracting too much from its strength. A
diffuser can be easily made from some doubled-up loose weave white cloth
(I use butter muslin), held tight in an embroidery hoop. Now, of
course, this may have been a chance shot with the light coming from
another room and no time to do anything and if so, then nothing much
could be done, except, perhaps, to tone it down a bit in a photo-
manipulation program.
Other than the light, this is a great picture which just misses a three
thumbs up rating.
Rating: Two thumbs up
*****
Picture Title: Hooch, the cute one
Critique: This picture is an attempt to show off the rat, Hooch, in his
surroundings. In that it shows viewers the rat in his cage and bedding,
it works. This picture has a snapshot feel about it: the
straightforward composition and the harsh light give it a point and
shoot atmosphere.
It's a nice picture, and certainly one that records a memory precious to
the owner of the rat, but it doesn't really work either technically or
artistically. Technically, the light is too harsh: probably a fixed
flash was used, and the rat's eyes look close to the red eye look.
Certainly the light has produced some distracting shadows that do
nothing to flatter the subject or its surroundings. Further, the
picture looks a bit soft, particularly the rat. This is a shame,
because even with the harsh light, if the picture had been sharp, given
the close up nature of it, the details and colour would have compensated
for the lighting conditions. It was not to be, though. Finally, if the
picture had been taken closer in, of just the rat, a bit of its bedding
and the blue hutch, it would have more effectively captured Hooch and
his surroundings, showing off more colour and detail.
It's a good attempt and it does succeed in capturing a memory.
Rating: One thumb up.
*****
Picture Title: Slinky Sammy
Critique: I like the composition of this picture: the rat does indeed
appear to be slinking across the cloth or bedspread. In particular, I
like the way its tail almost slithers away, with a life of its own, in
the upper left-hand part of the picture Its eyes appear to be very
intent on some goal. I also like the contrast between the different
textures: the furry rat on one hand and the tightly woven cloth. The
way the rat seems to be travelling down a corner of the cloth, almost
making an arrow shape the way it is across the red stripe, is
particularly good. This was a good moment to take this shot.
What lets this shot down is the light: it clearly has not been taken
with the correct white balance setting and all the colours have suffered
because of this. The focus might be a bit soft, as well, but that might
be down to a trick of the light. It would have been nice to have had
some reflection in the eye of the rat that is fully visible, but I
realise that this isn't always possible, especially with shots like this
that require the photographer to point the camera and hope that it
worked.
It's a good image and the only thing that really lets it down is the
light.
Rating: Two thumbs up.
*****
Picture Title: Sammy and little Wolfie
Critique: Hmmm, I don't know what the oil painting effect does, so it
makes this shot hard to judge as I don't know where the photographer
stops and the software manipulation program starts. Nevertheless, it is
helpful to know that an effect has been applied, because I can at least
think about it in my critique.
The subjects in this shot are clear, and it is also clear that they are
connected. Not only are they both rats, but both have light coloured
fur and both are touching. It is this connected relationship that
heightens the effect of the size difference between the rats: without
some connection between them, this size difference would have seemed
less important and perhaps incidental. Well done for showing this size
difference so elegantly and so clearly. The problem I have with this
composition is that Sammy is looking away. I have no problem with the
relationship of separation being portrayed in pictures, but I don't know
that it was appropriate here. Now, it may be that the photographer
wanted to create a separation between the viewers of this picture and
Sammy and between Sammy and Wolfie, and I can see good reasons for this,
but I don't think it quite works here. The problem is that the viewers
of this picture can't connect with Sammy. That Wolfie can't quite
connect with Sammy by seeing him is no problem, because it heightens the
difference, but because people looking at the picture can't see Sammy's
eyes, he seems distant and, given that the photographer wanted to
emphasise the size difference between the two rats, this distance
between the viewers and Sammy creates an alternate emphasis for the
picture, and one that competes with the main theme and detracts from it.
The play of light and shadows in this picture is good, although the
picture itself seems a bit grainy. This might be down to the oil
painting effect, though. The picture also seems just a bit soft, but
this, too, might be due to the oil painting effect. Without knowing
more about it, I can't really judge these qualities except to mention
what I see. I would very much have liked to have seen the picture
without this effect, though, so that I could judge the effectiveness of
it.
It's a good picture and the relationship between the two sizes of rats
has been shown well, although not as well as it could have been.
Rating: Two thumbs up
*****
Picture Title: A lapful of babies
Critique: This is a very good picture. I like the way that the baby
rats stand out against the dark background: that's difficult to do and
well done to the photographer for managing it so well. The composition
is good, in that it shows off all the babies, in both their sameness and
individuality. It is not at all clear, though, that the rats are in
someone's lap, so it doesn't quite match the title.
I like very much the way the baby rats all seem to flow together. The
composition of this picture could have been improved slightly by zooming
in a bit closer and cropping the picture in such a way that there is no
cut off of rats at either end, giving it a feel of an infinity of baby
rats. This would have strengthened the image no end, and, of course,
allowed viewers of the picture to see more details. The background
isn't important, and since one cannot see that its on a lap, going in a
bit more and cropping it tightly would concentrate the viewers' eyes on
the subject.
There seems to be a slight graininess in this picture: this could be
down to the scanner. It doesn't detract too much from the picture,
although I know it's there. The baby rats seem just a bit soft as well,
although that could be down to the light.
This is a good picture and with a bit of work, the image could have been
even stronger.
Rating: Two thumbs up.
*****
Picture Title: Pile o' Rats
Critique: This is a wonderful perspective. I like the way the rats seem
to grow out of the wire thing they are on. The big rat looking towards
the camera almost seems be saying 'go away, we're busy'. There's some
good reflections in the visible eyes of the rats. I also like the way
that one more rat is trying to fit into the pile. The way the rat in
front is slightly out of focus and trails off of the picture implies
that more rats are to come.
What lets this shot down is the composition. It almost works, but there
is too much space on the left-hand side of the picture and not enough
space on the right-hand side. If the photographer had moved over a bit
more, to capture the rats more centrally, this would have been a great
image. As it is, the rats on the right-hand side of the picture are cut
off oddly, and there is an odd blur on that side of the picture as well,
that is very distracting.
Other than that, the picture is a good one and the perspective
wonderful. If this is an event that happens quite a bit with the rats,
if I were the photographer, I would have another go.
Rating: Two thumbs up
-----
I hope these critiques help. I haven't tried to be too harsh or too
kind. I wish to be constructive. Please let me know what you think.
Rachael Nex
> Rachael Nex <rat...@badrats.co.uk> on Fri, 20 Sep 2002 at 15:00:20
> posted the following on uk.rec.photo.misc:
>
> <snip>
> >>
> >> I haven't had the time yet to do a really in-depth critique of your
> >> photos, but I will, if you like. I'm just a newbie photographer, but I
> >> think I have helped a few people with my comments, at least some people
> >> on the photoSig site have written to me to say so. Further, I have
> >> learned quite a bit from having to comment on the work of others.
> >
> >That would be beneficial, thanks.
>
>
> I apologise for the delay, but I've been busy and then, because I was
> out in too long trying to take shots of pheasants, I caught a bad chill.
Ouch. Hope that's better now ?
> I wanted to critique all your photos at once, but it was just a bit too
> much for me, so I am working on it in sections. I'll reply to the rest
> of what you wrote in another post, but I wanted to post this set of
> critiques tonight. I have started with the first section in your photo
> gallery: Rats. I am working on the nature shots, but I haven't finished
> them yet. I'll then start on the other two. The reason it takes so
> long is that I spend quite a bit of time examining each picture. I
> don't do 'sound bite' critiques. I have also rated each picture using
> the photoSig scale which goes from three thumbs down to three thumbs up
> with no zero point. I am not all that happy with such a crude scale,
> but I thought that if I rated your pics this way, you could have a look
> at the critiques I have done on photoSig and compare them with what I
> have said about your photos and that it would also allow you to compare
> them with what others have said about other photos on that site.
Right-o.
I have
> also written a brief overview before each section, just to let you know
> from where I am coming. Without further delay, here's the critique of
> 'Rats':
>
> Overview:
>
> The first thing I think of when I see the word 'rats' is 'poison'. The
> next thing is the Fawlty Towers episode featuring the 'Siberian
> Hamster'. After that, my mind fills with images of mazes and scientific
> experiments. I had never really considered seriously rats as pets.
> Well, these pictures have certainly shown me a different perspective of
> the issue, though I must say that nothing is ever going to make me love
> the creatures.
>
> Note: there is a picture image I can't access: the picture between
> 'Hooch, the cute one' and 'Slinky Sammy'; I can see its thumbnail, but
> whenever I click on the thumbnail, all I get is a Tiscali Services page
> telling me that the page cannot be found.
Wierd. It's ok for me at the moment, it loads and all that - the picture is
of Seven the rat trying to knock a bottle of herbcraft tincture over. It is
blurry and noisey - that much I can tell you. But other than that you're not
missing much.
>
> *****
>
> Picture Title: Blueboy the Rat
>
> Critique: This is a good macro that shows viewers of this pic enough
> detail without losing the whole shape of the rat. The depth of field is
> very good: I can even see the little whiskers under the nose and each
> claw on the rat's front feet is distinctive. There are reflections in
> the rat's eyes, which is good, because this gives the eyes life. Well
> done to the photographer for capturing the bluish-cast to the rat's
> fur: it really stands out against the dark background and this isn't
> easy to do. This blue cast ties the title of the picture to this rat:
> 'Blueboy' is the sort of name one might give to a rat with such fur.
That is his name, as it goes.
>
> The rat's position and the reflections in its eyes give it an
> inquisitive, almost intelligent look, imparting some of the rat's
> 'personality'. The lighting is good: it is soft and clear: any harshness
> would have been distracting in a close-up shot like this.
>
> The background is good: it gives context in that it shows that this rat
> isn't in a cage or a hole, but it doesn't distract the viewers' eyes
> from the subject of this shot, the rat.
>
> There are a few problems with this overall good picture, though, and
> that is the reddish half-circle in the upper left-hand corner. It is
> clearly something in the background, but it doesn't add anything to the
> picture and distracts the eyes so it should be cropped. The bright bit
> of background in the lower right-hand corner of the picture should
> either have been covered up during the shot or darkened by some photo-
> manipulation program afterwards, as it, too, is a bit distracting. If
> this were a shot of a rat in the wild, these things would be less of a
> problem, but as this is a 'posed' shot of a pet, then the photographer
> had more control over them, so they become bigger problems.
I did try to clone these bits out but I messed it up, so in the end I didn't
bother. But I am aware of the effect they have. I need to brush up on my
post processing skills.
Hmmm. Point taken - but I do have to point out that the pictures don't
actually have titles as such - they are more descriptions. I don't do titles
really - I'm useless at them. He was playing at the time fwiw !
>
> It's a good picture, but not a great one at present. I realise that
> rats probably don't easily pose for shots,
You're not wrong !
<has a quick look> LOL - so there is. This is the problem I get from not
being able to see very well, - I didn't notice that until it was pointed
out. I think it is the edge of a bowl but I can't remember.
It was taken with a very old camera, I think is the problem.
> I say this because it looks very grainy.
> Despite this grain, I can clearly tell that the rat in question is
> biting the toilet roll tube. Given the graininess, I can't tell whether
> it has gripped the tube in its claws, but it probably has. The focus of
> this picture is clearly the rat, although the white paper going to the
> side takes the eyes a bit away from the subject. The rest of the
> objects in the shot, however, give it context: they show that this is
> where the rat is kept, and that it has a variety of toys, but, that at
> the moment, it has chosen to play with the tube. The light looks good
> and the depth of field right, although given the graininess, it is
> difficult to tell.
>
> It might have been better to zoom in a bit more on the rat, which would
> have captured more of the action, and helped the rat stand out a bit
> more against the light background, but nevertheless, it is a good image.
>
> Although I think the image a strong one, because of the graininess, I
> have to mark it down quite a bit.
>
> Rating: One thumb up
>
> *****
>
> Picture Title: Mummy Pen and newborn babies
>
> Critique: This must have been a difficult shot to take because no doubt
> the mother rat in this picture didn't want to be disturbed too much.
Nah - she didn't care. The next morning she dumped some of them on me and
ran off. ;-) We are quite close, my rats and I.
Sadly it isn't any better - it was grainy and out of focus.
I am very grateful that you took the time to go into such depth - I've not
snipped any of what you've said because I really do appreciate it and want
to get the fact across that I have read it all, and taken it in. You make
very good points and obviously have a *waaay* better critique technique than
I ever will ! You see more in the pictures than I ever thought about when
taking them. I'm not sure I will ever be able to think in the same way,
more's the pity.
The only comments I can make that might explain some of the issues you
raised are that, as I said on the index page, most of these were put in the
gallery for cuteness factor rather than photographic value. I suppose they
are more interesting to rat owners than to photgraphers, really.
Only the top three pictures were taken with my 2800z - all the others were
taken with an old Kodak digital that has no zoom and isn't even a one mega
pixel count. So that could be why they are so grainy and often out of focus
(the Kodak camera is four years old and isn't anything to write home about).
I'm interested and pleased to find that the pictures you liked better aren't
the same as the ones I like better (though with rats I am rather biased, as
I have kept them for nine years and they are more like my children than my
pets - so as far as I'm concerned, all I can see in the pictures is
cuteness. So I'm not the best person to judge their photographic value.)
Most of these were taken as on the spot shots which weren't posed. Rats
don't pose really - Blueboy did, but he's the only one who would. The rest
of them just do their own thing and I follow them round like a big idiot,
trying to snap them. I keep meaning to build some sort of setting in which
to photograph them where they can't wander off, but that isn't as easy as it
sounds (which is why I haven't done it yet) ! So out of all the pictures on
the site, these are the ones taken with the least composition and
photographic merit in mind. They mean something to me as a rat-mummy, but I
don't expect them to mean much else to anyone else.
I anticipate your next installment of critiques - the nature pictures are
the beginning of what I would call the "real" pictures, iyswim. I took them
more with photography in mind rather than just snap shots. From the top of
the index to the bottom, they go in chronological order - and thus in order
of inexperience too. Hopefully I get better towards the bottom. ;-)
I supose you haven't had time to further your next special effects shot,
what with being unwell and busy huh ? I am looking forward to seeing it.
Thankyou again for taking so much time to critique me. I really do
appreciate it, even if I don't have much to say in return. (This means I am
taking it all in !)
Rachael