Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Some more images  (Read 1661 times)
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« on: April 02, 2009, 05:45:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for taking the time to open up yet another thread from the new guy.

Here's a few of my more eclectic images ... fire away ... looking for constructive criticism.





and finally, "The Trip"

Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4084



« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2009, 02:33:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
Thanks for taking the time to open up yet another thread from the new guy.

Here's a few of my more eclectic images ... fire away ... looking for constructive criticism.





and finally, "The Trip"

You needn't promise - I may criticise, but I enjoy looking at your images and I'm sure I'm not the only one here who does.

That said, number one is cute; number two does nothing for me (and the bokeh in the distance looks, to my eye, rather unpleasant); and as for three, I think I understand the title!

Jeremy
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2009, 02:44:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Can I be blunt?

It's not clear what's happening in the first shot. It needs context.

The second shot is a dud. It seems an attempt to be arty farty, but the plane of focus is narrow and meaningless. The OoF area on the left is also a complete distraction.

The third image is fine, but the processing looks unnatural on my computer, as though you used the 'shadows/highlught' tool with inappropriate settings.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6511



WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2009, 06:00:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Can I be blunt?

It's not clear what's happening in the first shot. It needs context.

The second shot is a dud. It seems an attempt to be arty farty, but the plane of focus is narrow and meaningless. The OoF area on the left is also a complete distraction.

The third image is fine, but the processing looks unnatural on my computer, as though you used the 'shadows/highlught' tool with inappropriate settings.

What he said!
Logged

situgrrl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 342


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2009, 06:27:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I quite like the first one....presumably a kid on a water slide.  Next time I might try to use a WA lens to capture the route and exit as well as the silloette.  The second one is an excellent test that proves this lens should never ever be used for selective focus shots ever again.  OOF highlights actually make me feel ill.

The 3rd.....did it start life as a photo or on a wacom?  Regardless, I like the knowing humour of it but the shadows somehow don't fall quite right.
Logged

Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2009, 07:17:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, all.  This was my "eclectic" set and I didn't expect to be showered with love on these ... but I did want to share some "other" stuff.

I adore the first - it's my son and he's sliding down a super long tube-slide.  It was a bit of a happy accident.  It was meant for the "family albums" ... but it keeps creeping into my "portfolio" collection ... if it wasn't my son, I'm not sure I'd feel as strongly about it.

The second was an experiment - I had bought a Canon 500D to use with my 70-200 for macro until I buy a true macro lens ... and I decided to see what would happen if I put it on my 17-35mm.  I had a bit of a deeper purpose than just goofing off ... when shooting that lens underwater behind a hemisphere dome port, many people add diopters to help distort the image in a way that maps better to the curved virtual image created by the dome.   Since I plan on taking the D700 underwater at some point, I wanted to see what optical effect it had on land.  This image evokes very strong negative reaction from most photographers (including me at times) ... but others seem to REALLY like it.  Go figure - I must have succeeded at being arty farty then ...  

The last was shot from the first day I owned the camera and was the first 32-bit HDR I tried with the D700.  I went totally over-the-top and I like it.  But I will also never do that again ...  My intent with "wykoffian" multiple-exposure techniques is to reproduce in photographic media dynamic ranges that are closer to how I see some scenes than a single capture from the sensor will allow.
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1970



WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2009, 05:54:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
It's not clear what's happening in the first shot. It needs context.

It's a kid going down a tube slide! But even if you don't figure that out, so what? A photo can be successful without context, simply because of its composition/tones/colors etc. In fact, some great photographs are great in part precisely because youdon't know what's going on.


Peter
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad