|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 24 |
Sep 20 |
Reply |
Unless you can go back to that spot, walk another 20m to the right, and then take the photograph again, I don't have any good ideas.
The reason I asked the question to everyone was to see if anyone else saw how the branches on the left side of the dead trees move the point of focus towards that spot. Or am I the only one? So much of the image is vertical. Nice strong, but not imposing, horizontal band from the slope, some nice tree shadows. The dead trees are very vertical except for those two branches. Honestly, this is something I know I wouldn't see at the time if I was taking this photograph. |
Sep 12th |
| 24 |
Sep 20 |
Reply |
Sam,
Well, in this case, I really didn't have much choice. It was a gloomy day :) Late January / February in Beijing is not really the best time of year to do much of anything, but I had the entire palace complex to myself. |
Sep 12th |
| 24 |
Sep 20 |
Reply |
John,
Hopefully I'll be able to cover everything in your feedback. That sliver across the top of the palace building definitely is in stuck in limbo. Not sure which direction I would go; open it up to get the entire roof plus ornamentation, or bring the door frame down and cut across the top beam. I might sway towards option two so as to have the flow of the roof tiles pulling the movement down. Might work? I can see your point in opening it up a bit and getting the a fuller image of the palace while increasing the slice of sky. My concern would be the addition of more glare. As we can see, the snowy mist really spreads illumination but also creates strong dark spaces. I do like how you mentioned that, "the amount of negative black area which at this point seems very heavy", and I can completely understand where that is coming from. I would like for the image to be heavy, but maybe not so much as to really impose itself too much on the viewer. The snow is an interesting call in terms of what to do with it. I like ambiguity to an extent, and here I might stay in that area. Most of the time, I don't shoot for perfection. If someone went to that exact same spot, in those same conditions, and approached that gate and thought, "Is that water surrounding the palace?", but on closer examination found it was was an illusion, would that not be real?
On to your second post (I think I covered most of the stuff from the first). First, I can see your point with drawing out more detail in the wall and portal area. I agree that it might add to the tension while also decreasing the "heaviness" felt in the image. I might not go about doing too much with the interior of the image. I wouldn't want to narrow the possible narratives. I like your interpretation of the Yin-Yang nature of the image. This was not my intention, but if I must be honest, I have four narratives constructed based on this image. I prefer images that "show", not necessarily "tell". The fact the image engaged your interest beyond the superficial was the only intention from the very beginning. I took this photograph just in the hope of getting something that might be engaging. There is no light meter on a Pentax 6x7, you only have 11-12 frames to shoot on 120mm film - the whole process is hope hahaha It is the hope that the negative says something to you, and hopefully speak to others. |
Sep 12th |
| 24 |
Sep 20 |
Comment |
Thorro, what a serene and quiet photo.
A curiosity question. My eyes seem to fix on the empty space to the left of the dead trees and where the live trees join. Anyone else get that? |
Sep 7th |
| 24 |
Sep 20 |
Comment |
Sam, Stephen jumped in with the same suggestions I was going to make. Variety is the spice of life, as they say. I was going to suggest a composition with a least two different types of garlic. Some have this violet purplish banding. That would add some grey-scale variation across the white skin of the garlic. My other suggestion would be to mix up how the garlics are placed. Instead of having them all right-side up, maybe the axis of a few. |
Sep 7th |
| 24 |
Sep 20 |
Reply |
Jim,
Reading your comments and also those of Thorro are quite interesting to me in terms of suggestions to sort of create either a 3D or 2D perception of the image. I have to say that I had neither intention in mind when taking this photo. I intentionally shot from off-center so as not the flatten the image. Having a hint of the thickness of the wall was intentional. Also, I wanted to capture that sense of illumination coming through the gate, almost as if it was a projected image. I find the lack of shadows in the image to be the most conflicting aspect. The building appears to be very 2D, while the wall and the gate is 3D. But this is conflict that I would take in preference to moving the viewer towards one way or the other. |
Sep 6th |
| 24 |
Sep 20 |
Comment |
I think you captured a great image. Having a fire cooked hand-made tortilla is a rare pleasure. Just based on the image I have before me, I can't help but notice the "grain" variations the exist between her skin, clothes, the wooden background, areas where the sun is coming through the back wall and where the hand has been removed. Everything I am going to say is a just a matter of personal opinion and personal style choices. I will desperately try to avoid using ISO increases past 1200, even if my camera can perform well past that number. Also, since my early years of photography were all BW film, I look for the contrast of moments like this and would attempt to capture the binary that exists between the illuminated and the darkened. Slower shutter speed and lower ISO would illuminate the fire, that chaotic life giving and destructive force, while spreading across the floor, up her right arm, the lower part of her dress. The light glancing through the imperfect wooden wall would slice across the negative. |
Sep 6th |
3 comments - 4 replies for Group 24
|
| 97 |
Sep 20 |
Reply |
Thorro,
I could help but notice that you used "auto" in Lightroom. I have almost no confidence in the auto button. I might click it as a curiosity an rare occasions to see what it thinks the direction should be, but I'll always undo it before going about any post-processing. My process is to play around with everything first and always exposure last. |
Sep 12th |
| 97 |
Sep 20 |
Reply |
Thanks Larry. I was just shocked that it actually held its ground long enough for me to get a good batch of photos. |
Sep 4th |
| 97 |
Sep 20 |
Reply |
I still use Lightroom 4 and have no plans of moving away from it, at least at the moment. I put all the pressure on me and my abilities when the camera is in my hand, and this probably because of my film background. |
Sep 2nd |
| 97 |
Sep 20 |
Reply |
I was thinking the same thing, what a great start to a great group. |
Sep 2nd |
| 97 |
Sep 20 |
Reply |
I total dig what you have done with the image. It creates a whole new experience. |
Sep 2nd |
| 97 |
Sep 20 |
Reply |
I think that by going panoramic the image has much more intensity, tension and drama. Nice going |
Sep 2nd |
| 97 |
Sep 20 |
Reply |
The lack of sharpness on the gulls does detract from the image a bit, especially right where the beaks meet. I think that if that was in focus, the impact of the image would increase and firmly direct the eyes to a fixed point.
My feeling on placing subjects in a central position might be bit different than others. The rule of thirds is more of a suggestion to me :). I see the geometry in an image in layers, and sometimes that illuminates something you had not seen before. Layers of triangulation create a central void. If that void is free of distraction, eye movement around the image will follow the triangles again and again, and will want to find the defining point of where movement begins and ends. The black line is dead center. The act of affection caught in the photograph is dead center - the point from which all things radiate from. I would argue that if you move the gulls off frame, the impact of that action would be decreased. And for what narrative value?
Does any of this make sense hahahhaa? |
Sep 1st |
 |
| 97 |
Sep 20 |
Reply |
I think I read your mind on that. I posted panel #3 at the same time you were posting a comment |
Sep 1st |
| 97 |
Sep 20 |
Reply |
I took your feedback Steve M. and applied it to one of the close ups. |
Sep 1st |
 |
| 97 |
Sep 20 |
Reply |
I see your point about the position in frame. I like what you have done by moving it to the upper right. I have another dozen or so stills of this guy. I'll go through those and keep your observation in mind. But for this particular photo, my intention was to leave the butterfly as far back in the image as possible in order to maximize its camouflage, while still keeping it visible, so I didn't want to crop too much and drawn it forward. |
Sep 1st |
| 97 |
Sep 20 |
Comment |
Hi Thorro. First, I want to commend you on being able to get the coyote in focus with all the other focal point distractions. My first impression is, what a great stalking photo. But that leads to the question, what is it looking at? And it is this question that is beginning to nag at me. I feel like I need to know more of the scope of what is happening outside frame right. Of course, I understand that we don't always have a choice in the matter :)
As for tones and hues, I think it is pretty spot on.
I think you were right to crop out that grey stick at the bottom and that top sliver.
I hope you don't mind, I did some work on your photo. Slightly different approach to cropping. Also, I was interested in seeing if I could soften and blur the grass, while maintaining the integrity of the coyote. Total experiment. This is what I did using Lightroom.
Exposure +.25
Contrast +25
Clarity +15
Vibrance +4
Saturation +4
Noise Reduction - Luminance 50 |
Sep 1st |
 |
| 97 |
Sep 20 |
Comment |
Hi Stanley. I have found photographing birds to be a true test of focal point determination. Something that still tests my patience. In this composition, I think that you have taken on one of the more difficult layouts in that the bird's heads are farther than their bodies.
The nurturing image is confirmed and highlighted through the neutrality of the background. Its soft natural tones don't cause friction or deviation from the central theme. |
Sep 1st |
2 comments - 10 replies for Group 97
|
5 comments - 14 replies Total
|
