Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Almost but not quite. Love the details on the hat the jackets etc etc. But the important flesh bits (face, hands) are killed by the blown highlights. Wonderful contrasting character-filled faces so 10 out of 10 for choice of subject, composition, facial expression etc . But the execution turned out to be… well a bit of an execution.
Peter
Looks like David Chesterfield and I frequent the same beaches. Love his dawn shot of Main Beach but here are a couple of different shots of the same spot. His Fingal shot is of one of the bluebottle jellyfish that invade us around this time of year. I see these so often but have never taken one from low down, many thanks for the inspiration Dave in fact the shot has given me a whole lot of ideas. Have to say that Fingal Beach/Dreamtime beach are my favourite spots on the planet. The buried branches are my Fingal offering. And finally Coolangatta. Stunning, beautiful glorious unless you are catching the tail end of a cyclone. A couple of shots from two or three years back. The foam isn’t pollution its natural foam stirred up by the wild seas. Oh how I wish that the stainless steel shower structure wasn’t there but it was. One day I will sit down and clone it out. But what a fluke the colour of her clothes was exactly the same as that of the wild sea. And the foam creatures. As I said natural foam. I have waited for a repeat of the weather that produced this but it hasn’t happened…… yet. Beaches….. I walk several miles every day on the most glorious beaches with my lovely wife but every day is different…. beaches are ever changing.
Peter
Yeah I figured it was a magazine style shot so I guess some of my comment reflects a bias against the ‘plastification’ (now there’s a word that should exist even if I just made it up) of models, particularly female models, in many publications we see. Not that I am being PC about it, its just that I prefer to see ‘real’ with all the warts as opposed to the idealised. But I don’t suppose that would sell many magazines. You are obviously a skilled photographer. I would love to see what you could do away from a studio type setting trying to bring out that calm confidence and the hint of vulnerability that you see. At the minute to my eyes and with my biases, the pic is about technique about something for your portfolio. I would look forward to some pics from you that are more about her.
I hope that all makes sense.
Peter
Interesting but I prefer the original image.By flipping and zooming in you have obviously taken away the context. In the original the in focus flowers were dominant in the pic, that’s where the eye was drawn. The reflection was then of interest as it reflected the subject. Your final image gives equal emphasis to both flowers and reflection to the extent that you lose the sense that it is a reflection which I presume is what you were after. But for me as an image it just doesn’t work. And the dots are a bit of a distraction to my eye.
Hope this helps.
Peter
Hi Dahlia
You are correct it is afternoon light and it is harsh. But its partly a consequence of the idiotic thing I am trying to do. To have any chance whatsoever of a sharp shot I have found that I need 1/1600 minimum. I am shooting 1.5 to 3 metres away at 300mm so an f stop of f6.3 is about as far as I can go. That gives a 2cm depth of field at 3 metres. Any less than that and the chance of getting the eye let alone most of the body in focus reduces greatly. I could crank up the ISO but the details on the little blighters are so small that any denoising risks loss of the detail that I want. So very bright light is essential to get the speed up. I have tried on a high thin white cloud covered day and the light is almost as good. The trouble is they don’t seem to want to come out and play as much as on the bright blue day. So harsh afternoon light it is. The vibrancy… yeah I could lift that a little. As for another object or leaf in the frame well that may have been nice for balance and contrast but it would have needed to be in focus or nearly in focus. And with such a narrow dof the odds of achieving that are pretty remote. Doesn’t mean I won’t try, As I said I am a photographic masochist.
Many thanks for the feedback. If anyone has any suggestions for different settings or technique I am only too happy to learn.Peter
Well I guess I am going to be the odd one out here. No question that the processing and technique are excellent with or without the touchups that have been suggested though I do think the gloves are far too heavy handed (no pun intended) But for all the technique the end result is… well….. plastic. You might just as well have photographed a dummy. All I see is yet another photomag image. I want to see a person not an image. The eyes may be clear sharp perfectly focussed etc etc but in the end they are doll like, lifeless and devoid of all personality. Is that really what you were after?
Peter
Yeah gotya. Will do a version leaving more sky on top and will take out the leaves on the right just to see how it looks. And thanks Rob re the slight ghost, I missed it. Will post final version in a couple of days. Many thanks for responding, its greatly appreciated.
Peter
Yup the kink is there in the pole. I don’t know how well the power poles are manufactured where you live but around here, particularly some of the older ones, are pretty rough and ready. But that’s why I like them.
Peter
I have no weird compunction to stick to reality, its all fair game in photography as far as I am concerned. I posted this image with the pole tall first but was already in the process of shortening the pole which is very fiddly but lots of fun. I will post the result in a couple of days but many thanks for the feedback.
Peter
Remove them. They might be flies but they look like dirt specks. And since I am one of those painful types that looks every centimetre of a pic I find them quite distracting.
Nice pic by the way.
Peter
Its not quite one thing or the other. Either show more of the person so that I can relate to what they are doing or remove the person and the section of wood on the right so the pic becomes the blur of light and the arch beyond. Of the two I think I would prefer the second version with no person. But certainly an image that makes you want to explore.
Peter
Its a bit hard to tell at this size but the front is quite sharp the back is also quite sharp but the mid ground, particularly where the hill slopes away looks soft. To me that feels a little strange. But its an eye attracting shot.
Peter
Hmmm looking at it now after a couple of days I think I agree. Its washed out and probably overworked in some areas. Will have another go. Thanks for some good feedback.
Peter.
The single foreground tree with that background would be a stunning image, truely stunning But the two trees in the background kill the whole pic. Sorry to say but you end up with a tangled mess. Pity really ……….almost but not quite.
Peter
So its a long exposure shot. It shouldn’t matter what technique you choose. The final pic should not be about demonstrating technique. Its like I used 17 processes to cook this meal but if the food tastes crap then what was the point. Now I am not saying this pic is crap, its not but the technique is a means to an end not an end in itself. So to the pic. Firstly, the details, look at the bottom left, and the top left for goodness sake don’t post a pic where you haven’t cropped properly. Slivers of white say ‘careless.’ You have got the horizontals correct but have a look at the triangular red structure in the water, it leans to the left. Its an easy fix, attend to the basics. Now to the pic overall. I like the triangular composition but the tiny light on the horizon is a distraction and the perfect star light from the triangular structure looks a little too perfect. But if that’s the way it was then fine. But the killer for me is the result of the long exposure. The blue overlay on the rocks on the bottom left and the strange almost ghostly echoes on the rocks under the structure really jar with the solid reality of the rest of the pic. Style over substance I am afraid. A good subject but I don’t think you did it justice. What would have made it unique? A clear, in focus well exposed well composed shot is my answer. You had all the elements in front of you, that’s unique! Trying to be unique just makes it another run of the mill try hard shot. After all of that I actually like the shot, it has a lot going for it, I just don’t think that the technique you used did it justice.
As they say in cooking, keep it simple.
Peter
No I didn’t use a tripod it was hand held. As for the settings, you are right about the need for speed with animal shots. But it was a very overcast day, heavy cloud and loads of trees. I prefer to work at ISO 100 but I never ever go over ISO 400, because I hate noise. I wanted this angle and also wanted to get the whole of the roo in focus. So in that sort of circumstance I set it on aperture priority and take a lot of shots of shots over a range of different apertures. To take 50 or 60 shots to get one good one makes sense to me, its digital, it costs nothing except time. This is the one that came out the best. Not the settings I would choose if I had only had the chance for one or two shots. But it was the one that worked.
Peter
Errr not sure why but I actually rather like this but with a couple of provisos.
The blue works as a mood thing except for the hideous bright blue patches in the sky. I think they need to be pulled back quite a bit. The crop doesn’t work for me at all. Its a bench so its the bench that needs to impact. Try a 16/9 crop of the top and right and a bit off the bottom. By the way, its a very nice bench.Peter
Not for me. Don’t like the cut off hat. The halo down the right side of his face is really distracting. But mainly the DOF is so narrow that most of his face is soft except for his whiskers. And because of his head position and the shades I have no sense of immediacy or connection with the subject. Sorry, not one of your best in my opinion.
Like the detail, like the expression and love the T-shirt. As for the arm I obviously didn’t find it intrusive initially because I had to look for it. And it does add a sense of depth and continuity of the market beyond this particular stall. But now I have seen the arm I am not sure, my eye keeps going back to it. Or more precisely my eye keeps going back to the white dot on the bottle. I wonder if cloning out the dot would reduce the distraction, I suspect it might.
Thanks Rob.
Actually do have my monitor calibrated but it was the auto setting that I was curious about. It may also be a consequence of the fact that the ambient lighting in the room where I have my computer varies a huge amount over the day. So maybe I need to take some steps to standardise that a little.But thanks for your response.
Peter
