Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Does this work?  (Read 7004 times)
Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« on: February 18, 2006, 11:56:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I was recently in Yosemite the day after a snowstorm (living a several-hour-drive from there helps, one can go spontaneously!) and took one photo which turned out interestingly:



There was *no* selective modification of saturation (really!).  The sunlit cliff in the background was glowing yellow, while the rest in the shade was nearly colorless.  It's a curiousity, but I'm not sure whether it "works" in any way.

I liked the curve of the ice-covered tree on the right side, and the way it points at the waterfall (did you even notice the waterfall? it tends to blend in more than I'd like), but I'm not sure it sufficiently stands out from the background.

Comments?

Lisa

P.S.  How do you get the thumbnail images that some others have been using since we got new forum software???
Logged

jule
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 738


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2006, 02:59:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Lisa, at the bottom of the reply box there is a section called "File Attachments". Click 'Browse' to find the file, click open the file, then click "add this attachment". It will locate the file and then list it, then you click "add into post"...and presto
Logged

jule
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 738


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2006, 03:13:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Looks cold! Lisa was the foliage on the trees to the left that dark?? The curved branch works well with the waterfall, as does the colourings on the cliff face. I'm not sure I noticed the waterfall straight away. I had to look for it, but when I found it, it then had a sense of mystery about it because it wasn't that obvious from the start.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2006, 09:24:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Lisa,
I like the way you've kept the exposure short to reveal the texture and shading in the snow-covered rocks (which is why the foliage looks a bit dark as Jule noted). Right now it's so hot in Queensland, I could do with a picture like this covering the whole wall.

The problem I find with this scene is there's simply too much detail and no clear indication as to the main subject. However, this impression might change with a poster size blow-up. The ice-covered tree on the right is leading the eye to the hardly noticeable waterfall, but it's more dominantly leading the eye to the snow-covered rock bottom right. We thus have a fragmented foreground with two competing subjects; the large rock bottom left and the smaller rock bottom right which, although smaller, is just as prominent because of the ice-covered tree.

I tend to think a bit of cropping might help here, as follows: [attachment=258:attachment]
Logged
Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2006, 10:32:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for your comments...

Jule:  The trees really weren't that dark, but, between the large dynamic range and trying to get detail in the snow (as Ray suggests), the trees came out dark; besides, I liked the high-contrast appearance of it when it came out that way.

Ray:  I'm ambivalent about your crop.  It does make the waterfall more noticeable, which is good, but cuts off a lot of the curve of the tree, which is bad.  Perhaps I'll experiment with different croppings and see what happens.

It's true it's a very "busy" picture.  I occasionally like pictures like that, probably much more than most people do.  But then, I've always far preferred Baroque architecture to Modern any day...  

Lisa
« Last Edit: February 20, 2006, 10:34:14 AM by nniko » Logged

OnyimBob
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 276


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2006, 04:13:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Lisa,
Ray's comment about blowing it up to poster size strikes a chord with the Alan Briot essay a few weeks ago about subject matter & print size. Your pic on the screen is busy and doesn't jump out at you ....but, all I can do on this laptop is copy it into PS and res it up so that it overfills the screen and what you can see begins to take on a different feel. The "busyness" becomes really interesting detail. I think this would great as a large print. Also, it reminds me of winter scene pics by Bernard Languillier in Japan.
Bob.
Logged

Dale_Cotton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2006, 04:15:55 PM »
ReplyReply

My vote is that this is a superb image just as it is and that Erato, the muse of poetic sensibilities, will staple you to your own tax return if you dare to change a single pixel.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2006, 07:57:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I should mention that I did not crop Lisa's image with any sense of great confidence   . It's quite often all right to be 'almost' overwhelmed with detail. The image can then sustain longer attention because there's more to discover.

However, I would still prefer this image to be a good poster size, but I fear Lisa's D70 (if that's the camera she used) might not be up to the task of providing sufficient detail at close inspection, to satisfy some folks.

Perhaps this is why Lisa has decided to upgrade to a D200   .
Logged
Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2006, 02:22:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Dale -  Wow!  Such words of confidence!  Thanks.

Ray -  A print of this one is currently printed at 12"x18" on my wall.  At 12"x18" (the biggest I usually print), the D70 (yes, that's what it was taken with) is quite good but not quite "great".  That's the #1 reason I upgraded to the D200 (along with having MLU) - more pixels, so better image quality for bigger enlargements, as you have guessed.  So I can't print it any bigger, sadly.  At 12"x18", it's only a *little* overwhelming...

Lisa
Logged

JRandallNichols
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #9 on: February 25, 2006, 12:10:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Lisa and all,

I realize this is to some extent yesterday's news, but this is such fun (given a great image to start with) I couldn't resist.  Given that a poster size is not an option here, I liked the direction Ray's crop was headed.  You are right, though, that it loses the curve of the tree.  What also worries me about the whole image (which I think Ray's crop may only accentuate) is that I tend to leave the image at the top and also at bottom left (even though the darker triangle of the snow-capped rock does nicely repeat the other triangular shapes of the streambed).  I'm also missing a bit of punch from the sunlit waterfall area.

I have played here with a different crop--much more square which I think the strong verticals in the image itself will permit--some increased saturation, and slight vignetting of the upper edge and corners.  Just for what it's worth.

Thanks for letting us play with your work!
Logged

Randy
jule
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 738


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2006, 03:21:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes Lisa, thanks for offering this to let us play. I personally feel that JRandallNichol's crop is a little too cramped. I have another suggestion...keeping the full curved sweep of the branch on the right, and a little more of the vertical tree on the left, still accentuating the vertical aspect, but just giving it a bit more room to breathe. The reason I widened the crop of Randy's is that I feel the initial mysterious quality of the waterfall in the distance that I loved so much, seemed to be a little lost for me when it was brought closer due to the tighter crop. [attachment=285:attachment]
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7443



WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2006, 11:54:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, I like all of the variants, but so far my favorites are (1) Jule's latest, and (2) Lisa's original.

This is an image I really enjoy coming back to again and again. Thanks for sharing it, Lisa!

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2006, 12:59:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, I like all of the variants, but so far my favorites are (1) Jule's latest, and (2) Lisa's original.

This is an image I really enjoy coming back to again and again. Thanks for sharing it, Lisa!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59078\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes. I agree. It being a Sunday afternoon here in Australia, I'm going to (probably) put my foot in (my mouth).

I remember as I was about to crop Lisa's image, I experienced a sort of epiphany for about one secomd . (It's too strong a word, I know. I just can't think of any other word more appropriate). It was a slightly fuzzy, warm feeling, that this image was just right and shouldn't be cropped. But I cropped nevertheless.

On reflection, I would say that all of us who are concerned about composition, have developed a number of recipes for good composition. They are not rules, never to be broken, but guidelines we respect.

Sometimes we are urged by our own egos to pretend to be a bit too clever and ignore the small voice within us. We stick by conventionality because it's a true and tried recipe. This is what I did when cropping Lisa's photo.

Following is my current appraisal upon further reflection.

The two snow-covered boulders in the foreground are definitely very dominant; the one in the bottom left corner particularly so. Nevertheless, in hot and steamy Brisbane there's nothing wrong in having a huge snow-covered boulder in one's living room.

However, the presence of the two boulders, left and right, tends to deliniate the rocky path to the waterfall and 'heavenly' cliff-face behind it. So we have both a curved branch and a rocky path leading to the waterfall and blaze of sunlit cliff (if it was exaggerated a bit).

Now this situation has clear sexual connotations which I don't think I should ellaborate on, because this is, I believe, a family program.

It's difficult to properly assess a small jpeg compressed image on one's small monitor, but I would say that a rendering that brought out the maximum detail in the bottom leftmost rock could be just right.

Oh! One further point I almost forgot. The rocky path to the waterfall is symbolic in itself. It sort of complements the smooth, streamlined, phallic shaped, modern skyscrapers, motorbikes and sports cars.

The path to true love is rocky.  
« Last Edit: February 26, 2006, 02:10:56 AM by Ray » Logged
Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2006, 12:35:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The path to true love is rocky.

It's rockier than you think!   I'm sorry to burst your poetic bubble, Ray, but that boulder-strewn "path" is actually the boulder-strewn river, the one that waterfall was pouring into.  The photo was taken from a bridge across the river, and the actual path to the waterfall is off-camera among the trees to the right.  I just had the camera tilted sufficiently upward that the water flowing around the boulders didn't quite make it into the picture.  I'm very pleased that the image gets the imagination going, though; that's what I try for in my best pictures.

Like Eric, I like the original crop and Jule's crop about equally.  I think the original crop would work best in a larger print, and Jule's best in a smaller print.

Lisa
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #14 on: February 26, 2006, 06:41:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's rockier than you think!   I'm sorry to burst your poetic bubble, Ray, but that boulder-strewn "path" is actually the boulder-strewn river, the one that waterfall was pouring into.  [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59110\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It doesn't really matter what it actually is, Lisa. Images are about appearance. It looks like a rocky path to me; the sort of boulder-strewn path I've had to walk along on many occasions in the Australian bush where dry river beds are often the only access through dense undergrowth.
Logged
camilla
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2006, 06:53:26 PM »
ReplyReply

lisa did you by chance take other photos with the sunlit cliff. I kind of miss not seeing more of it in the photo you posted. I also yearned for a closer look at the waterfall with the beautiful trees to the left and more of the sunlit wall. Maybe vertical???

Love it anyway and enjoy all of your photos, all the time.
Great job!
camilla
Logged
Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2006, 07:24:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks very much, camilla.  I did take a vertical shot with more of the cliff, but didn't like it as much; I thought the top of the cliff and sky weren't as interesting as the waterfall and snowy tree and tended to distract from them, and made it less mysterious looking.  Anyway, that version (with just some quick minimal processing) is attached below.

Lisa
« Last Edit: February 26, 2006, 07:25:12 PM by nniko » Logged

jule
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 738


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2006, 08:40:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks very much, camilla.  I did take a vertical shot with more of the cliff, but didn't like it as much; I thought the top of the cliff and sky weren't as interesting as the waterfall and snowy tree and tended to distract from them, and made it less mysterious looking.  Anyway, that version (with just some quick minimal processing) is attached below.

Lisa
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59121\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Lisa, I prefer your original post pic as well, but thanks for showing us this one so we can have an idea of the location. Your original post pic I feel does have more an element of mystery to it and makes me feel as if I am much more intimate in my surroundings. The second pic makes me feel as if I am standing on a spot where hikers/tourists always stop to take photos of the wonderful scenery....but it just lacks that magical quality of the first pic.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad