Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: urban landscapes  (Read 3328 times)
matthew1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« on: December 11, 2006, 10:23:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Any constructive feedback welcome.
So much for my urban landscape photos... why wont they attachto this post?
Any expertise out there?
Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2006, 10:54:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Any constructive feedback welcome.
So much for my urban landscape photos... why wont they attachto this post?
Any expertise out there?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The image doesn't do much for me.  Too semetrical and perfect.  Obviously set up.  And for a table top, no impact.  The composition is lacking - where do I look first, last - doesn't matter.
Logged
matthew1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2006, 08:56:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Fair enough.
I wanted to attach some true landscape photos, but they will not attach.
Is there a file size limit?
I tried several but they are unreduced jpegs from a 6 megapixel camera. Will not attach to post.
I don't have any software to reduce file size.
Any suggestions?
Please advise - thanks.
Logged
matthew1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2006, 09:17:09 PM »
ReplyReply

By the way, the spelling is "symmetrical"  as in symmetry.
I thought that the image included showed a pleasing order and a "dynamic symmetry" - very architectural.

Symmetry as it used to be defined by greek architects and gothic master masons.
That is: "correlation by measurement between the various elements of the plan, and between each of these elements and the whole."
"When every important part of the composition is set in proportion by the right correlation between height and width, between width and depth, and when all parts also have their place in the total symmetry of the work, there is urhythmy".

Obviously this image isn't a cathedral, but I think it has a harmonious balance. The eye doesn't need to dart around because it is at rest viewing the whole composition. closer inspection reveals a small twist in that the opposing leaves display a top and underside view. A bit of "ying / yang - positive / negative - up / down etc...
Logged
LoisWakeman
Guest
« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2006, 08:08:55 AM »
ReplyReply

How can you not have any image processing software? Just curious.
Logged
matthew1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2006, 11:07:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How can you not have any image processing software? Just curious.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91380\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I haven't loaded the camera software.
Windows picture viewer can't resize as far as I can tell.
Is this the issue? image size?
Logged
Dale_Cotton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2006, 08:25:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
wanted to attach some true landscape photos, but they will not attach.
Is there a file size limit?
I tried several but they are unreduced jpegs from a 6 megapixel camera. Will not attach to post.
The problem could be a file size limit. Another, more remote, possibility that comes to mind is that space characters in the file name can cause problems on some servers. IAC, it's not generally advisable to post the unreduced original of a shot, if for no other reason than that many viewers have limited bandwidth and/or slow connections.

Think of it like this: a 6 mp camera has that many pixels because printers need millions of pixels to create prints on paper. That's one use for a digital photograph. Another use is to look at the picture on a computer monitor. I'd sure love to have a 6 mp monitor, but most of us make do with something more along the lines of 1 mp. 1024 by 768 is still the most common monitor resolution.

When sharing photos with others - whether friends, family, or forum members - the standard practice is to provide a copy of the original resized to somewhere in the vicinity of 400 to 800 pixels on the longer side. We all understand that a lot of detail is missing from a reduced version of a photo and take that into account. My sense is that the only time sharing an unreduced version of the original is appropriate is when the other person wants to print the picture and you are OK with that.

Quote
I don't have any software to reduce file size.
Quote
I haven't loaded the camera software.
Most cameras come with at least one software application that provides enough editing capability to resize. And just to make sure we're clear: you don't want to resize the original. Make sure you have a safe copy of each unedited original you value.

* * *

Having said all that and assuming your primary intent for posting those as yet unseen landscapes is to get feedback, Howie's response to your yellow leaves pic is pretty indicative of what you're in for. I assume you liked it or you wouldn't have posted it. Howie disagrees. I can break the tie by saying that I generally like it. The composition pleases me and the shadings are delicate. The next person to post may well side with Howie. I can then respond in more detail, saying that I would like the picture even better if the background, being flat, were on better talking terms with the leaves, being curved. But that juxtaposition may be one of the picture's essential elements in your eyes and someone somewhere is bound to agree.

It will be interesting to learn - say, a year from now - whether you ended up getting more value than bruises from the process. ;)
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 25, 2006, 01:43:41 AM »
ReplyReply

The image is obviously an intentional arrangement of the leaves on what appears to be a sheet of paper in a controlled environment, as opposed to something natural you simply found and captured. Generally in studio still life shots, a great deal of attention is paid to things like specks of dirt on the paper, the marks (insect bites?) on the lower-left leaf, etc. and it is also obvious that you have done no sharpening, tonal adjustments, or any other post-processing that is usual and customary when presenting digital images for public display.

Capturing the image is only the first step; you seem to have gotten focus and exposure more or less right, but there is much more involved to really bringing an image to life than merely setting the camera correctly and pressing the shutter release. You have a start, but only a start. As is, your image doesn't really engage my interest. With a bit of polishing, something interesting might be made of it, but as-is, at best it's a diamond in the rough.

Buy Photoshop, and learn how to use it. You'll be glad you did. The software that is bundled with cameras is generally crappy, and not worth wasting the time installing and learning to use.
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad