[SI] Breaking the Rules - Critique
Bandicoot
guess I'd better get to work and do a critique to get the ball rolling...
As usual, comments are from a very personal perspective. Overall, I like
the group of work I'm looking at.
Tom Hudson: this is one of my favourites. Which rule is being broken - is
it that the main subject isn't the one that's in focus, or is it that it is,
and it is the subject that's looking away from the camera? Either way it is
a very effective double 'portrait', and maybe the uncertainty about which
one is the 'main' subject is part of why it works so well. The DoF is just
right, still leaving the defocused 'second subject' clearly separated from
the background, and leaving enough detail in the background for it to be
recognisable what it is without it being distracting.
Mark Lauter: another case of focus - or at least, sharpness - being the key
'rule' that is broken. The panning blur has turned the water into a very
attractive background, giving almost a brush-stroke effect that heightens
the sense of this being an impressionist painting. The three birds (just
the right number!) are well placed in the frame, and I like the muted colour
palette. The rocks(?) bottom right help anchor the image, and prevent the
background from being too uniform. I could see this one hanging on the
wall.
Paul. Furman: well, as a self portrait you've certainly made a good pun on
your own name! I'm not sure which 'rule' I'd say was being broken here, but
it's certainly an effective image, and the exposure works well for what is
not an easy shot to expose. I like the positioning of the clouds a lot:
they balance the image perfectly, and the way the flare spots 'lead' to the
highlight on the cheekbone is also effective. Much more interesting than
the usual self portrait.
Rich Pos: rather a beautiful image, but I'm not sure which 'rule' is being
broken, unless it is the central placement of the subject. In this instance
that works well, because it emphasises the way that the bracket fungus is
divided into 'halves' but they are not mirror images of each other. The
foliage on the right, slight curve of the tree-trunk, and the OoF trees in
the background also all add effective elements of asymmetry that work to
make that central placement feel 'right'. I like the bokeh of the
background, but wonder if the shadows are a tiny bit dark, and the
highlights _just_ blown out - that may well be down to
scanning/post-processing though, of course: I can't tell. This is a little
different from the average mushroom shot, and I like it for that.
Peter Boorman ('Bandicoot'): yes, that's me. Perhaps I should leave it to
someone else to say which 'rules' they think I was deliberately breaking.
The three main figures are all friends at a party where I'd been asked to
provide a few shots. I was shooting colour as well, but wanted to use some
B&W and so used a single roll of Kodak T400CN in a Ricoh R1 that I could
slip in a pocket. The R1 has a switchable lens giving full frame 30mm or a
cropped 'panoramic' 24mm - you can 'fix' it so it'll give full frame 24mm
too, but then the corners vignette severely. I like it as a B&W camera: I
seldom use on with colour. The 24mm pano. format is good in crowds, and not
as unflattering as using the 21mm lens on my GR21 - another 'pocketable'
option - would be. The very white T-shirt is deliberate, but I know it is
slightly blown out on this scan: that is the scan, not the negative, so I
must scan it again when I have time.
Owamanga!: lots of 'rules' being broken here - the subject is unsharp, no
one is looking at the camera, the subject is cut-off by the edge of the
frame, and there are things poking into the image that we can't even
identify. All of which is good! I like this shot, as it seems to capture
something of the sense of wonder and uncertainty the baby must be
experiencing as it explores and learns about the world. Having the baby not
wholly framed by the edge of the mage adds to the sense of movement: s/he is
crawling _into_ the frame rather than being tracked _by_ the frame. The
other elements, just out of focus blurs, balance the composition nicely by
their placement, and because we can't really work out what they are, they
don't distract us from the subject. Another one I really like.
Walt Hanks: Walt has told us which 'rules' he broke, and also why the
'style' of the image particular fits the character of the subject. It's
certainly a very effective portrait. The boy is looking out of frame, but
has more space in the frame in the direction he is looking, so this is more
a bending than a breaking of a rule, perhaps, but the focus is certainly
unconventional. Because the ball is sharper than the boy's face it gains in
relative importance, helping to overcome, to an extent, the way that the
human brain locks onto a face in any image (the hidden face in Owamanga!'s
picture is another example of a picture that would be less interesting if
the face were allowed to dominate). Here the boy seems to be trying to
decide whether he wants to throw the ball to someone else, or keep hold of
it, and by making the ball sharper we are brought into that uncertainty much
more directly than we would be if we concentrated on his face and saw the
ball only as a secondary object. The way he holds the ball with his jacket
cuffs, not actually touching it with his hands, adds to that sense of
ambivalence about what he wants to do with it. Very effective portrait.
Alan Browne: I don't know which 'rule' Alan is breaking - unless it is the
one about hand-holding a macro shot! He's focused pretty much where I would
have, though maybe I'd have gone for a tiny bit more DoF around the stamens.
The placement in the frame, and the cutting off of the ends of most of the
petals works just right, for me, but I'm a little unsure about the of mass
of another flower at top left: it seems to unbalance the picture a little
for me,without any similar masses elsewhere in the background to balance it.
The tiny bright sliver of pink to bottom right is also slightly distracting.
Since this is the kind of shot I do thousands of, and for money, maybe I'm
more picky than I should be, and probably am much more prone to apply my own
specific style to looking at this than I would be with, say, a portrait
which is something I do very little of. Indeed, apart form those two minor
quibbles about the background, I like this shot - probably because the
framing and composition are very close to what I would probably have done
myself: well, we all have our prejudices.
Jim Kramer: I think the dog may be trying its best to break the rules of
gravity here... This is a quirky shot, leaving the viewer wondering what's
going on. The cut-off of the dog's ear, and the man's presence suggested
only by a shoe and jeans leg, both add to the feeling of dynamism. There
are several things in the shot, but all but the dog and the jeans leg have
been reduced to very simple shapes, and that gives the image a certain
power. On one level it is almost a snap-shot, clearly grabbed quickly, yet
it is also effective in this sense of man and dog surrounded by a confusing
array of simple but unclear shapes. This one grows on me the more I look at
it. Presumably this is some sort of dog show / competition, with the dog
carrying the ball round some obstacles?
Al Denelsbeck: strong Woods effect on the trees makes it clear to us this is
an IR shot, and deeper IR than most films go, while the lack of halation
tells us it wasn't done on HIE - so we know it's probably digital even
before Al tells us it was taken on his 'Hasbro'. The two people in the boat
aren't really the 'subject' of this picture, surely the trees are that, but
they are the 'key' that anchors it and makes it much more than just a shot
of trees that is interesting only because of the IR effect. Their placement
is certainly unconventional, well down in the corner, but it works: it
emphasises the size of the trees, and helps to stop the eye from lingering
on the boat to the detriment of the foliage. This one too is growing on me,
and I like a it a lot. My only problem with the composition is the vertical
band of pale foliage just above the water-line on the far right: I find that
a little distracting and wonder if it would be better either cropped out, or
toned down a bit by burning it in. I suspect this is an image that looks
best when printed quite large.
Well, altogether I like this crop of pictures, and am pleased both with the
number of the entries and with how few are archive shots, for a mandate that
does rather pre-suppose there might be a lot of archive shots. I'm also
pleased that Brian has followed it with a serendipity mandate, as it
emphasises the point I hoped to make with this one: that I was looking for
shots that worked because they deliberately broke 'rules', not the ones
Brian has asked for that work despite, or because, they accidentally 'went
wrong'. Both can be fun, and they aren't the same. (I think I know what
I'll put in for Brain's mandate already, if I can find the print and scan it
in time.)
Peter
--
http://www.bard-hill.co.uk
jimkramer
"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:111686087...@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
> Well, I did say I hoped this mandate would provoke some discussion, so I
> guess I'd better get to work and do a critique to get the ball rolling...
>
> As usual, comments are from a very personal perspective. Overall, I like
> the group of work I'm looking at.
>
> gravity here... This is a quirky shot, leaving the viewer wondering
> what's
> going on. The cut-off of the dog's ear, and the man's presence suggested
> only by a shoe and jeans leg, both add to the feeling of dynamism. There
> are several things in the shot, but all but the dog and the jeans leg have
> been reduced to very simple shapes, and that gives the image a certain
> power. On one level it is almost a snap-shot, clearly grabbed quickly,
> yet
> it is also effective in this sense of man and dog surrounded by a
> confusing
> array of simple but unclear shapes. This one grows on me the more I look
> at
> it. Presumably this is some sort of dog show / competition, with the dog
> carrying the ball round some obstacles?
>
Flyball practice day. The dogs run over 4 jumps and hit the "box" which
releases a tennis ball. The dog is supposed to grab the ball and run back
over the four jumps. It is typically done as a relay race with two teams of
four dogs. It was fun to watch and to photograph. I like doing dog sports
photography because you never really know what the dog is going to do. Now
if event photography just paid a great deal more.....
Other shots from the day:
Restrained jumping?
http://www.lookbefore.wading-in.net/DogSports/GDGFB052205/IMG_6684.htm
Only the nose knows.
http://www.lookbefore.wading-in.net/DogSports/GDGFB052205/IMG_6711.htm
What Ball!?
http://www.lookbefore.wading-in.net/DogSports/GDGFB052205/IMG_6861.htm
The unexpected course.
http://www.lookbefore.wading-in.net/DogSports/GDGFB052205/IMG_6899.htm
Thanks for looking,
Jim Kramer
Owamanga
Tom Hudson: Focus not on the obvious subject, and some blown
highlights. One of my favorite shots because the identity of the kids
isn't obvious which makes it somewhat abstract. Slightly washed out
coloring, slight overexposure, good color coordination between the two
children and an excellent choice of framing make this photo work.
Mark Lauter: Nice, almost abstract again, without having sharp focus
on the birds, the scene still makes sense. Some rules haven't been
broken, and this helps support the picture: Birds are flying into the
frame, birds form triangle, rule of thirds almost met.
Paul. Furman: Broken the first rule of photography: Never photograph
up your own nostrils. Photographing with a dirty filter, without a
hood, including the sun, getting flare - all rules broken. Why does it
work? - Very powerful image, framing is superb, harsh lighting helps
the macho image, and the blue sky explains the shot. Rays of flare
seemingly emanating from your eye are a little strange....
Rich Pos: Rule of thirds being broken. Rule of fungus being broken
(always shoot BW)... I can't help thinking it would look better in BW
with a bit of soft focus... dunno... An interesting shot none the
less.
Peter Boorman ('Bandicoot'): Rules broken? got far too close for a
portrait, flash on side of camera throwing ugly shadows, everybody's
looking off frame, strange black shadow intersects the brunette's
face. Well, it's another favorite of mine in this set mainly due to
the harsh lighting but also it's interesting crop, cute girls, mixed
race crowd, B&W, everybody is doing something and ignoring the camera.
You really get the feeling that they are crammed in there and enjoying
themselves.
Owamanga!: (mine) Framed as shot. Rules broken: much too slow a
shutter speed for close-object movement, shooting down onto the child
instead of from it's level, main POI is almost central (rule of
thirds), motion leading out of frame. Why I thought it still works...
bright color of the cycle helmet, the sense of awkward motion, the
triangle of three items - the child, the chair leg and the toy that
define the frame and the openness/unclutteredness of the image that
let you still work out what it is you are looking at.
Walt Hanks: Walt's explanation explains his reasoning well. This works
for me due to the contrast between the child's head and the rest of
the image, also between his eyes and his face. The conveying of
loneliness is helped by the fact the boy pays no attention to the
camera.
Alan Browne: What rule was broken? Over cropping of the flower? DOF
too shallow? Other petals top left and bottom right distracting? If
so, these are relatively minor. The flower has a real 3D feel to it,
and the only thing I'd change is to warm it up a little in PS. Of
course if the hundreds of Orchid shots I've seen are part of the rule
set, this one should have been ripped from it's plant, stuck in a
studio with a black background and sprayed with a fine mist prior to
shooting it. (I'm not claiming it's an Orchid, I have no idea what it
is..).
Jim Kramer: So, the dogs head was obscured slightly, and the subject
is heading out of frame. The picture works despite that. Framing this
way was a necessity to explain the image, so it's fine. Focus wise,
the dog's head is spot on, the rest of the scene suffers blur - again,
no problem and it helps draw your attention to the dog and it's
expression.
Al Denelsbeck: Rule of thirds again I guess... But you've met other
rules that make this work: kept the horizon away from the center of
the frame, kept the boat moving into the frame and used IR for an
interesting foliage shot that would otherwise have been far less
powerful.
I enjoyed these, it was a good choice of mandate.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Mr. Mark
> Mark Lauter:
<snip>
> I could see this one hanging on the wall.
WOW! IMO that's the highest praise possible. Thank you.
--
Mark
Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Walt Hanks
"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:111686087...@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
> guess I'd better get to work and do a critique to get the ball rolling...
>
> 'style' of the image particular fits the character of the subject. It's
> certainly a very effective portrait. The boy is looking out of frame, but
> has more space in the frame in the direction he is looking, so this is
> more
> a bending than a breaking of a rule, perhaps, but the focus is certainly
> unconventional. Because the ball is sharper than the boy's face it gains
> in
> relative importance, helping to overcome, to an extent, the way that the
> human brain locks onto a face in any image (the hidden face in Owamanga!'s
> picture is another example of a picture that would be less interesting if
> the face were allowed to dominate). Here the boy seems to be trying to
> decide whether he wants to throw the ball to someone else, or keep hold of
> it, and by making the ball sharper we are brought into that uncertainty
> much
> more directly than we would be if we concentrated on his face and saw the
> ball only as a secondary object. The way he holds the ball with his
> jacket
> cuffs, not actually touching it with his hands, adds to that sense of
> ambivalence about what he wants to do with it. Very effective portrait.
>
Thank you for those kind words. I hadn't even considered how he was holding
the ball, but you're right about the ambivalence. There was a football game
going on behind him and another adult trying to get him to play catch, and
he just played by himself. I'm glad you felt I effectively captured the
mood of the child.
Walt
Walt Hanks
"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o7u391devi8bhhho3...@4ax.com...
> Walt Hanks: Walt's explanation explains his reasoning well. This works
> for me due to the contrast between the child's head and the rest of
> the image, also between his eyes and his face. The conveying of
> loneliness is helped by the fact the boy pays no attention to the
> camera.
Thanks to you as well. There were several shots where he was looking at me,
but they just didn't capture his mood the way this one did.
Walt
Paul Furman
>
> Well, altogether I ...am pleased ...
> with how few are archive shots
Heh, shot that a few minutes after reading the mandate & a few replies.
--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Paul Furman
>
> Paul. Furman: Broken the first rule of photography: Never photograph
> up your own nostrils.
At least I didn't submit this one:
http://www.edgehill.net/temp.jpg
<cringe>
Here's a more realistic view:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/Misc/misc-photos/2005-03-24-beard/more/0-141132+.jpg>
>
> Owamanga!: (mine)
> Why I thought it still works...
> ..the openness/unclutteredness of the image
This cleanness really makes it work.
Bandicoot
> wrote in message news:o7u391devi8bhhho3...@4ax.com...
LOL - help yourself!
[SNIP]
>
> Peter Boorman ('Bandicoot'): Rules broken? got far too
> close for a portrait, flash on side of camera throwing ugly
> shadows, everybody's looking off frame, strange black
> shadow intersects the brunette's face. Well, it's another
> favorite of mine in this set mainly due to the harsh lighting
> but also it's interesting crop, cute girls, mixed race crowd,
> B&W, everybody is doing something and ignoring the
> camera. You really get the feeling that they are crammed in
> there and enjoying themselves.
Thanks: I think you seem to like it for the same reason it appeals to me,
which is pleasing. Getting that close is pretty well inevitable for
(un-posed) shots of this sort of event, so I try to make a virtue out of a
necessity by making use of the dynamism it can provide. This time it was
just as Femi (the black guy at the left) turned that I 'saw' the
composition, with the girl half seen on the extreme left adding emphasis to
his out-turned gaze. I'm not sure why looking away emphasises the two girls
in the back, but I think it does. And yes, everyone certainly was enjoying
themselves!
I'll tell Jane you think she's cute ;-)
Peter
Paul Bielec
about it.
I submitted it yesterday and I hope that Al will include it in the gallery.
Alan Browne
Send the bribe money to me and I'll do my best with Al...
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Paul Bielec
> Paul Bielec wrote:
>
>> I shot a picture for this mandate 2 weeks ago and completely forgot
>> about it.
>> I submitted it yesterday and I hope that Al will include it in the
>> gallery.
>
>
> Send the bribe money to me and I'll do my best with Al...
>
I wonder if any lens on the Digital Rebel would be able to give that result.
Alan Browne
It's not that good. It benefitted from being reduced in size for the
SI. Properly done, on a windless day and tripod, I could have gotten a
little more DOF and a sharper result at full size ... w/o A-S.
The Canon 100mm macro could have done this shot just as easilly, and
likely several other lenses, inlcuding Sigma and Tamron.
Cheers,
Alan
Paul Bielec
> Paul Bielec wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Bielec wrote:
>>>
>>>> I shot a picture for this mandate 2 weeks ago and completely forgot
>>>> about it.
>>>> I submitted it yesterday and I hope that Al will include it in the
>>>> gallery.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send the bribe money to me and I'll do my best with Al...
>>>
>> BTW, I'm really impressed by the quality of the picture you submitted.
>> I wonder if any lens on the Digital Rebel would be able to give that
>> result.
>
>
> It's not that good. It benefitted from being reduced in size for the
> SI. Properly done, on a windless day and tripod, I could have gotten a
> little more DOF and a sharper result at full size ... w/o A-S.
>
> The Canon 100mm macro could have done this shot just as easilly, and
> likely several other lenses, inlcuding Sigma and Tamron.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
I know that it could be even better but I'm still impressed by its
quality since it is a hand held shot.
Was the lens you used a macro?
I'll not have a macro lens for a while since I want to get a wide angle
L lens first. But I'm already impressed by some macro shots I got using
my new 70-200 f4 L.
cheers
Alan Browne
>
> I know that it could be even better but I'm still impressed by its
> quality since it is a hand held shot.
> Was the lens you used a macro?
Yes. But I was not at 1:1 (about 1:3) and the anti-shake was lending a
hand.
> I'll not have a macro lens for a while since I want to get a wide angle
> L lens first. But I'm already impressed by some macro shots I got using
> my new 70-200 f4 L.
Certainly. My 80-200 f/2.8 is not for very close ups. (1.8m).
I do suggest that you look into the Tamrom 90 f/2.8 macro. It is both
sharper than the Canon 100mm macro and generally regarded as the best
"macro used as a portrait lens" out there. It will be best in the later
regard on your film camera.
jimkramer
news:d6vho7$edb$1...@dns3.cae.ca...
The Breaking the Rules Gallery has been updated with two new images.
Jim Kramer
ian lincoln
how are you shooting macro with that lens? Closest focusing is 1.2m
Paul Bielec
Duncan J Murray
"Walt Hanks" <walt...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9uydnXnNFf2...@comcast.com...
The more I look at this photo - the more I like it. There's a part of me
that wants to be that person - lost in his own world. When I was that age I
had the luxury of being able to do that, now, it's just not possible :(
Duncan.
Bandicoot
news:111686087...@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
> discussion, so I guess I'd better get to work and do a
> critique to get the ball rolling...
>
> As usual, comments are from a very personal perspective.
> Overall, I like the group of work I'm looking at.
[SNIP]
Comments on the two late entries:
Paul Bielec: several of the traditional 'rules' are broken here. Centred
subject; an 'arrow' that leads out of the frame; flowers photographed in
strong, direct, light; flowers against a very dark background; strong
patches of colour in that background. Some people might say that
photographing the tulips at other than their peak moment of flowering is an
'infraction' too, though I like buds and seedheads just as much as flowers.
Whatever, it certainly works. The leaf tip and the second bud give us an
asymmetrical, yet balanced, central group that makes the central placement
work well, and this is aided by that 'off-balance' background - taken all
together this makes for a very dynamic image with a strong sense of
movement, even though it is a static subject. The small shadow
criss-crossing the stem of the central bud somehow seems rather important in
anchoring it as part of that central grouping: without it I think the image
would work much less well. Here I think it is a case of some of the broken
'rules' working out because they are balanced by some of the others being
broken too: the central flower balances the odd background; the very
contrasty subject works because it is set against the dark background. I
like this one a lot.
Duncan Murray: is this a self-portrait, or a picture of the girl we find
ourselves asking. This is another case (like Tom Hudson's shot) where the
point of focus doesn't coincide with what the viewer (initially) assumes is
the main subject. Here this forces the eye to look at the detail elsewhere
in the scene before it settles back on that enigmatic face in the bottom
left. The composition poses several other questions too - like whether the
reflected man nearest the mirror is actually talking to the girl, or is part
of another group altogether. The odd light in the non-reflected part of the
scene makes it seem almost other-worldly, and since the mirror is the
brightest, sharpest, and most naturally lit area - and also the area where
the photographer is seen - it is almost as if we, the viewers, are the ones
who are 'through the looking glass' and looking out. That framed picture
top left is very significant, and allows the placement of the girl to work
as it does: without it the picture would still work, but its effect would be
rather different, with the girl seeming more isolated and less connection
between 'her' world and 'ours' - that would be an interesting shot too, but
maybe less involving. I wish the highlights seen outside the reflected
window were a tiny bit less bright, but I can't see any way that that could
have been avoided. This is a very interesting shot that I could see looking
at several times over time, and seeing more in it.
Two more very interesting shots - there seems to have been a very high
average standard this time round.
>
> Peter
> --
> http://www.bard-hill.co.uk
Paul Furman
Bandicoot wrote:
>
> Duncan Murray: ...That framed picture
> top left is very significant, and allows the placement of the girl to work
> as it does: without it the picture would still work, but its effect would be
> rather different, with the girl seeming more isolated and less connection
> between 'her' world and 'ours'
Did you notice the other painting in the top of the mirror with the same
pose and lighting as the girl? And the guy is in that painting too!
Paul Bielec
It started by taking some shots of flowers while trying a new lens. Then
I got the idea of photographing a tulip that didn't open yet as this is
something we we don't usually do. This was the main idea behind breaking
the rule. I took sevral shots and ended up cropping this one. As you
said, there are several things technically not right in this shot,
however they do work together. I really like the result.
Paul Bielec
Al Denelsbeck
> Well, I did say I hoped this mandate would provoke some discussion, so
> I guess I'd better get to work and do a critique to get the ball
> rolling...
>
> As usual, comments are from a very personal perspective. Overall, I
> like the group of work I'm looking at.
>
<snip all dem other people>
> Al Denelsbeck: strong Woods effect on the trees makes it clear to us
> this is an IR shot, and deeper IR than most films go, while the lack
> of halation tells us it wasn't done on HIE - so we know it's probably
> digital even before Al tells us it was taken on his 'Hasbro'. The two
> people in the boat aren't really the 'subject' of this picture, surely
> the trees are that, but they are the 'key' that anchors it and makes
> it much more than just a shot of trees that is interesting only
> because of the IR effect. Their placement is certainly
> unconventional, well down in the corner, but it works: it emphasises
> the size of the trees, and helps to stop the eye from lingering on the
> boat to the detriment of the foliage. This one too is growing on me,
> and I like a it a lot. My only problem with the composition is the
> vertical band of pale foliage just above the water-line on the far
> right: I find that a little distracting and wonder if it would be
> better either cropped out, or toned down a bit by burning it in. I
> suspect this is an image that looks best when printed quite large.
Thanks for the comments. This one was "tailored" to fit the mandate
slightly better with a tighter crop, since I was undecided what rules I
wanted to break and chose this shot from a productive day's pile of images.
As indicated, I was trashing the rule of thirds, with a arguable inclusion
of two others: one, "don't shoot at midday on bright days" (which is where
IR might keep me busy at those times), and two, "don't shoot IR with a
camera that's not intended for it". But that could be a stretch... ;-)
I picked this one over another because I felt it worked pretty well
as a composition and demonstrated that thirds is a half-ass concept at best
- it reminded me of a discussion long past where someone wanted a focusing
screen with lines etched into it right smack on the thirds, and wasn't
getting the idea that it was a rough guideline, and didn't require
precision adherence to 33.3333333%. Ah well...
And I agree - the trees do seem to be huge in this perspective, yet
they're not particularly large. But as a large print it probably would
suffer, because the shot isn't that sharp - best guess is the lens isn't
optimized for IR work (not even slightly intended for it, and peeking at
the blue channel indicates it has some serious color aberrations).
Cheers!
- Al.
--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Al Denelsbeck
news:o7u391devi8bhhho3...@4ax.com:
> I read Bandicoot's one and thought I'd steal his format...
>
<snippo>
> Al Denelsbeck: Rule of thirds again I guess... But you've met other
> rules that make this work: kept the horizon away from the center of
> the frame, kept the boat moving into the frame and used IR for an
> interesting foliage shot that would otherwise have been far less
> powerful.
There are some rules that I'm loathe to break, and while chasing
shots that day I found myself staying firmly within good compositional
practices rather than trying to force them out. Sigh...
I've been playing a lot with IR the past couple weeks, mostly to see
exactly what it does before I start using the roll of HIE in the Elan IIe
(and yes, I know I can expect fogging from that body). I'm in search of the
situation where it induces more contrast than is normally visible, rather
than less - nearly all foliage blends together, so while you might get a
shot of "unnatural" brightness over typical B&W response, you still have
the same kind of contrasting elements, such as trees and sky. Basically an
exaggerated version of filtered B&W work. Except that yellow flowers and
green leaves all blend together. I'm trying to find situations where IR
makes the contrast leap out over a straight film situation. We'll see...
Thanks for commenting!
Duncan J Murray
> I've been playing a lot with IR the past couple weeks, mostly to see
> exactly what it does before I start using the roll of HIE in the Elan IIe
> (and yes, I know I can expect fogging from that body). I'm in search of
> the
> situation where it induces more contrast than is normally visible, rather
> than less - nearly all foliage blends together, so while you might get a
> shot of "unnatural" brightness over typical B&W response, you still have
> the same kind of contrasting elements, such as trees and sky. Basically an
> exaggerated version of filtered B&W work. Except that yellow flowers and
> green leaves all blend together. I'm trying to find situations where IR
> makes the contrast leap out over a straight film situation. We'll see...
Maybe try more foliage and water combinations - they should be extremes.
You could maybe shoot foliage with water behind to bring it out more.
Duncan.
Bandicoot
news:Xns9661D3863DB64sa...@66.26.32.8...
[SNIP]
>
> There are some rules that I'm loathe to break, and while
> chasing shots that day I found myself staying firmly within
> good compositional practices rather than trying to force
> them out. Sigh...
But that's the point: your composition doesn't follow those trite 'rules'
about thirds or even the golden section, yet it has a fundamental
'rightness' about it. It 'breaks the rules' and is a better picture because
you composed the way it looked best, rahter than being bound by someone
elses formulations.
>
> I've been playing a lot with IR the past couple weeks,
> mostly to see exactly what it does before I start using the
> roll of HIE in the Elan IIe (and yes, I know I can expect
> fogging from that body). I'm in search of the situation where > it
induces more contrast than is normally visible, rather
> than less - nearly all foliage blends together, so while you
> might get a shot of "unnatural" brightness over typical B&W > response,
you still have the same kind of contrasting
> elements, such as trees and sky. Basically an exaggerated
> version of filtered B&W work. Except that yellow flowers
> and green leaves all blend together. I'm trying to find
> situations where IR makes the contrast leap out over a
> straight film situation. We'll see...
>
Water lilies in a pool? White leaves, black water...
Peter
Bandicoot
news:4mj49154nq8cvmq65...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:07:16 +0100, "Bandicoot"
> <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:
>
> >Rich Pos: rather a beautiful image, but I'm not sure which
> >'rule' is being broken, unless it is the central placement of
> >the subject. In this instance that works well, because it
> >emphasises the way that the bracket fungus is divided into
> >'halves' but they are not mirror images of each other. The
> >foliage on the right, slight curve of the tree-trunk, and the
> >OoF trees in the background also all add effective
> >elements of asymmetry that work to make that central
> >placement feel 'right'. I like the bokeh of the background,
> >but wonder if the shadows are a tiny bit dark, and the
> >highlights _just_ blown out - that may well be down to
> >scanning/post-processing though, of course: I can't tell.
> >This is a little different from the average mushroom shot,
> >and I like it for that
>
> Hi Peter, thanks for commenting on the gallery.
> BreakingTheRules..... as you mentioned the subject(s) are
> dead center, the tree is splitting the vertical down the
> middle, the shadows are blocked and the highlights are
> blown... despite all that I like the shot :) Printed very well
> indeed. I was rather surprised to find the exposure
> somewhat off when the neg was scanned. I took three
> shots, one at meter, one a stop above and another a stop
> below. The one you see is one stop under which goes
> against all logic.
Interesting: was that some type of matrix metering? I'd have expected (like
you) that you'd want to give a little extra exposure if it had been centre
weighted or spotted on teh mushrooms.
> Oh well, that's photography. I *think* what may have
> messed the meter is I used a 42" gold reflector bouncing
> just a hint of light on the underside of the oysters. The day
> was perfect for this type of shot. Had been raining for 12
> hours, the rain stopped minutes before I took this shot and
> the sky was still overcast.
>
> Kodak UC100, Canon AE1P, 100mm 4.0 macro, Slik
> tripod, gold reflector, cable release, IIRC 1/60 @ f 5.6,
> HP-s10 film scanner, PS 7.01 for curve adjustment and
> USM.
>
Interesting, thanks for that detail. I had actually wondered if there was
some reflected fill on the undersides. How much did you have to tweak the
curves - was it just to control the contrast or did you do more than that?
Cheers,
Peter
Bandicoot
Hear hear! Always seems to me it is really just a poor relation to the
golden section, and even then there are plenty of compositions - like
yours - that work better by following neither.
Admittedly thirds work better in the 35mm frame than many other formats,
because of the 1:1.5 proportions being related to threes - also works better
in the square than in other many other shapes. I couldn't imagine anyone
recommending it when shooting 6x12 though ;-)
> - it reminded me of a discussion long past where someone
> wanted a focusing screen with lines etched into it right
> smack on the thirds, and wasn't getting the idea that it was a
> rough guideline, and didn't require precision adherence to
> 33.3333333%. Ah well...
LOL - I remember that one too.
>
> And I agree - the trees do seem to be huge in this
> perspective, yet they're not particularly large. But as a large > print
it probably would suffer, because the shot isn't that
> sharp - best guess is the lens isn't optimized for IR work
> (not even slightly intended for it, and peeking at the blue
> channel indicates it has some serious color aberrations).
>
Were you able to adjust the focus to allow for the IR usage, or would AF not
allow that? That might be part of any lack of sharpness?
Peter
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne: What rule was broken? Over cropping of the flower? DOF
> too shallow? Other petals top left and bottom right distracting? If
> so, these are relatively minor. The flower has a real 3D feel to it,
> and the only thing I'd change is to warm it up a little in PS. Of
Thanks for the 3D comment. I was seeing it on my monitor and then
wondering it was just me.
I am having some PITA between Elemets 3.0 for print work and Elements
3.0 for web posting. To look right on print I have to use the Adobe RGB
settings; to look right on the web I have to use sRGB. Sometimes I
forget to switch to the right mode before opening a file... PITA. I
might re-install Elements 2.0 and operate it seperately for Web postings.
> course if the hundreds of Orchid shots I've seen are part of the rule
> set, this one should have been ripped from it's plant, stuck in a
> studio with a black background and sprayed with a fine mist prior to
> shooting it. (I'm not claiming it's an Orchid, I have no idea what it
> is..).
Apple blossom. About 3 cm across.
I was shooting flowers at my SO's today ... using difused flash (windy)
... I keep meaning to mist the flowers, but never get round to it.
> I enjoyed these, it was a good choice of mandate.
HOOEY! I didnt' take care to break or not break any rules.
Cheers,
Alan.
Bandicoot
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 03:04:25 +0100, "Bandicoot"
> <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:
>
[SNIP]
>
> Have a nice weekend,
>
Thanks for the info., interesting. Still intrigued by the meter going for a
stop over the shot you selected.
It's a bank holiday weekend here :-) So it'll probably rain :-(
Peter
Duncan J Murray
> asymmetrical, yet balanced, central group that makes the central placement
> work well, and this is aided by that 'off-balance' background - taken all
> together this makes for a very dynamic image with a strong sense of
> movement, even though it is a static subject.
I agree, they could almost be three jet-fighters tearing across woodland.
> Duncan Murray: is this a self-portrait, or a picture of the girl we find
> ourselves asking. This is another case (like Tom Hudson's shot) where the
> point of focus doesn't coincide with what the viewer (initially) assumes
> is
> the main subject. Here this forces the eye to look at the detail
> elsewhere
> in the scene before it settles back on that enigmatic face in the bottom
> left. The composition poses several other questions too - like whether
> the
> reflected man nearest the mirror is actually talking to the girl, or is
> part
> of another group altogether. The odd light in the non-reflected part of
> the
> scene makes it seem almost other-worldly, and since the mirror is the
> brightest, sharpest, and most naturally lit area - and also the area where
> the photographer is seen - it is almost as if we, the viewers, are the
> ones
> who are 'through the looking glass' and looking out.
I agree - particularly since the photographer (myself) is blacked out (not
intended at the time, but unavoidable without flash). I also think
sometimes that we get two views of the 'enigmatic' lady - we can see her
face, and also where she's looking at... I think maybe somewhere out the
window, or at the guy sitting on his own at the window.
> That framed picture
> top left is very significant, and allows the placement of the girl to work
> as it does: without it the picture would still work, but its effect would
> be
> rather different, with the girl seeming more isolated and less connection
> between 'her' world and 'ours' - that would be an interesting shot too,
> but
> maybe less involving. I wish the highlights seen outside the reflected
> window were a tiny bit less bright, but I can't see any way that that
> could
> have been avoided.
I never noticed that about the picture, but I suppose you are right, being
pretty much the only connection between the two scenes. The highlights were
unfortunately quite blown - I tried to leave as much detail as I could, but
you can see already that the lady is already falling off the exposure curve.
> This is a very interesting shot that I could see looking
> at several times over time, and seeing more in it.
Thankyou very much for the observant comments - I love to be able to
recreate this kind of photo when I choose to, but I think it came about with
a large bit of luck. It stood out to me from a set of 36 slides in holding
my attention for a while. I find the photo evokes the same questions in me
as you have written about, even though I know the lady - it's shown me a
side of her that I don't see when engaged in conversation.
Duncan.