Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: No Wake Zone  (Read 2716 times)
PhillyPhotographer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


« on: December 09, 2009, 06:31:12 PM »
ReplyReply

87mm
F/32
4 minutes
ISO 100
3 stop ND filter



Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6202



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2009, 08:46:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PhillyPhotographer
87mm
F/32
4 minutes
ISO 100
3 stop ND filter

Michael,

You lost me with this one. What were you trying to achieve? It's not that I dislike the picture; it just leaves me flat. Why the ND filter and long exposure? Did you intend the softness from diffusion at f/32 or did that just happen? Some of your other work has been good and quite technically competent, so I'm mystified.

?
Logged

PhillyPhotographer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2009, 09:09:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Michael,

You lost me with this one. What were you trying to achieve? It's not that I dislike the picture; it just leaves me flat. Why the ND filter and long exposure? Did you intend the softness from diffusion at f/32 or did that just happen? Some of your other work has been good and quite technically competent, so I'm mystified.

?

I wanted to achieve calm on the river and wanted an extreme contrast between the dark sky and the water without the distraction of all the lights that surround this photo at night. I thought the sign "No Wake Zone" and the perfectly smooth water was a fun idea. Josef Hoflehner and Michael Levin were inspirations for this photograph.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7898



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2009, 10:11:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I got it right away. I saw the "no wake zone" sign and had to chuckle when I noted that you had, quite obediently, completely eliminated any wake (or other turbulence) from the water.

Definitely a fun photo.

Eric

Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

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

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2009, 11:44:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Have always felt ambivalent about photos that rely on signage, but that's my problem.  Would be better if the sign were lower down rather than uncomfortably superimposed on the waterline.  Next time bring a ladder, but don't ask for permission.

This belongs to the general class of easily repeatable photographs, so there's no excuse for not banging away until it's perfect.
Logged
PhillyPhotographer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2009, 06:48:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bill t.
Have always felt ambivalent about photos that rely on signage, but that's my problem.  Would be better if the sign were lower down rather than uncomfortably superimposed on the waterline.  Next time bring a ladder, but don't ask for permission.

This belongs to the general class of easily repeatable photographs, so there's no excuse for not banging away until it's perfect.

I appreciate the opinons so far.

A couple of questions about this.

Why would I move a white sign over white water ? If anything I would retake this at a lower angle. Also how do you use a tripod on a ladder ?

I do plan on shooting this again when my 10 stop ND filter arrives.
Logged

cmi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491


« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2009, 03:15:30 PM »
ReplyReply

First impression, I'm not quite comfortable with this one. The break in the verticals looks irritating for me: The middle of the bridge and the poles the sign is on (anyone has the proper term?), forming together the vertical, wich is broken up. Now dont get me wrong I dont would these two elements to be vertically aligned, the opposite is the case. They are too near together and I believe that is whats causing my discomfort here. Of course all personal taste.

Cheers,

Christian
Logged
mattpallante
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2009, 04:12:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree with Christian that the verticals are too close...I feel the urge to move the sign/post to the left side of the image, maybe not so close, and the image more horizontal than square. Do you have any other crops or viewpoints that you are playing with?

Matt
Logged
PhillyPhotographer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2009, 05:53:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I went back today and wasn't greeted with the 45 mph winds like I was yesterday. Almost the same time of day but very different lighting and low tide. I also notice that they had to replace the "No Wake Zone" sign because the old wooden one blew off. I shot higher, lower, left and right but this is the view that seems to work.

Logged

bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2009, 08:41:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PhillyPhotographer
...how do you use a tripod on a ladder ?
You don't.  You drill a hole in the top step of the ladder so you can attach a ball-head there.  If the step is too wobbly you may need to make a simple spreader plate out of 3/4" Oak or thinner aluminum.  Amazing what just a couple extra feet of altitude can do for many shots, for instance you can easily shoot over walls, fences, etc.  The extra height also makes the nearest ground objects farther away and easier to hold in focus at that nice sharp f8 stop.

Just thought the white sign over the water would move it away from distracting background, and perhaps enhance the surreal qualities of the distant waterline by floating it somewhat.
Logged
EduPerez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 692


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2009, 02:33:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I too found the coincidence of the sign with the shoreline a bit unfortunate; but I still prefer the tones, the depth of field, and the composition from the first one.

The bridge at the back has a lot of weight on its own, I think it does not need to be sharp or even complete, and both the pillar and the sign are almost on the center of the picture. What I would have tried is: move the camera towards the left, so the pillar goes to the left of the frame and the sign to the right; shot from a lower point of view and raise the sign, even superimpose it to the bridge; get closer and enlarge the sign, crop the upper part of the bridge if needed; and finally, use a narrower depth of field, to blur the bridge. Just my very humble opinion.
Logged

PhillyPhotographer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2009, 11:19:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EduPerez
I too found the coincidence of the sign with the shoreline a bit unfortunate; but I still prefer the tones, the depth of field, and the composition from the first one.

The bridge at the back has a lot of weight on its own, I think it does not need to be sharp or even complete, and both the pillar and the sign are almost on the center of the picture. What I would have tried is: move the camera towards the left, so the pillar goes to the left of the frame and the sign to the right; shot from a lower point of view and raise the sign, even superimpose it to the bridge; get closer and enlarge the sign, crop the upper part of the bridge if needed; and finally, use a narrower depth of field, to blur the bridge. Just my very humble opinion.

Any more photographs at Penn's Landing in Philadelphia will have to wait. There are 6 or 7 Navy warships now docked down there for the Army-Navy game.
Logged

Bradley Proctor
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 150



WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2009, 02:38:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I like the photograph very much.  I don't agree with any of the complaints about it here so far.  At first glance I thought that it was two separate images, one of the bridge and one of the water neatly connected by the no wake zone sign.  Very cool.
Logged

PhillyPhotographer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2009, 02:44:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bproctor
I like the photograph very much.  I don't agree with any of the complaints about it here so far.  At first glance I thought that it was two separate images, one of the bridge and one of the water neatly connected by the no wake zone sign.  Very cool.

Thank you

F/22
4 minutes
ISO 100
6 stop ND filter
Logged

John R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1030


« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2009, 06:33:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PhillyPhotographer
Thank you

F/22
4 minutes
ISO 100
6 stop ND filter
I didn't know you could get 6 stop neutral density filter. The long exposures certainly make your water images somewhat surreal and minimalist looking. The changes from white to dark or black or gray are subtle and well balanced. I wonder if it would looks as good in colour. I seldom want or see in BW myself. Very nice work.

JMR
« Last Edit: December 11, 2009, 06:36:00 PM by John R » Logged
cmi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491


« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2009, 07:38:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I like the new one.
Logged
EduPerez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 692


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 14, 2009, 01:59:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EduPerez
I too found the coincidence of the sign with the shoreline a bit unfortunate; but I still prefer the tones, the depth of field, and the composition from the first one.

The bridge at the back has a lot of weight on its own, I think it does not need to be sharp or even complete, and both the pillar and the sign are almost on the center of the picture. What I would have tried is: move the camera towards the left, so the pillar goes to the left of the frame and the sign to the right; shot from a lower point of view and raise the sign, even superimpose it to the bridge; get closer and enlarge the sign, crop the upper part of the bridge if needed; and finally, use a narrower depth of field, to blur the bridge. Just my very humble opinion.

I hope my comment was not interpreted as bad criticism, or even some sort of a complaint. I liked both versions very much, they are very inspirational; so inspirational that I just had to add a suggestion that came to my mind when I saw them.
Logged

PhillyPhotographer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2009, 08:49:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EduPerez
I hope my comment was not interpreted as bad criticism, or even some sort of a complaint. I liked both versions very much, they are very inspirational; so inspirational that I just had to add a suggestion that came to my mind when I saw them.


Not at all.

Even if it was I wouldn't make it as an artist for too long if I couldn't take criticism.
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad