Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Good photo or just a really good sky?  (Read 3031 times)
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1881


WWW
« on: June 09, 2010, 08:44:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I canít decide

Itís a 6 frame stitch


Logged

Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2010, 08:53:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Nice picture...

trouble is the position of the boats in the picture... if you could move the one on the left right about two boat lengths, it would be even better.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1881


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2010, 09:32:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the feedback!
Logged

Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1881


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2010, 09:51:57 AM »
ReplyReply

BTW I tried a few variants, including moving the ferry, removing the ferry, replacing the ferry with a sail boat that Iíd caught a little earlier, but I thought none were as good as the original.

Around here many relate to the ferry boats and it connects them with the scene.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2010, 09:52:55 AM by Justan » Logged

francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6944


« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2010, 09:54:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
Nice picture...

trouble is the position of the boats in the picture... if you could move the one on the left right about two boat lengths, it would be even better.
I agree with your suggestion, it would produce a better photo.
Logged

Francois
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1881


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2010, 10:23:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Why do you think moving the tub it would improve the foto?
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6183


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2010, 11:58:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Or you could just bring out more detail in the boat, i.e., locally apply "fill light" or similar tool.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1881


WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2010, 12:08:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the feedback. That was done in the one above. In fact both the water and the tub on the left were brought up as separate processes. Bringing the tub up much more puts it in the realm of obvious standing out too much from the surroundings. Same for the water. The eye picks up the difference in levels in a wink.
Logged

Ed Blagden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2010, 12:24:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't understand the oppositional nature of your question.  It is a good sky - and therefore a good photo.  A sky like that demands to be photographed.  For me, the photo is about the sky, and the boats are incidental to the main subject and I wouldn't worry too much about them.

Very nice.


Ed
Logged

Visit my Flickr page
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2010, 01:13:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ed Blagden
I don't understand the oppositional nature of your question.  It is a good sky - and therefore a good photo.  A sky like that demands to be photographed.  For me, the photo is about the sky, and the boats are incidental to the main subject and I wouldn't worry too much about them.

Very nice.


Ed

Agreed. Besides, moving a ship in post just to satisfy some ridiculous rule-of-thirds is a step towards dumbing down photography (further).

Can't wait for all the "perfect" but dull imagery produced by abusing content-aware fill in PS5.

Stunning sky, the ships are incidental.
Logged

Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #10 on: June 09, 2010, 04:07:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
Agreed. Besides, moving a ship in post just to satisfy some ridiculous rule-of-thirds is a step towards dumbing down photography (further).

Can't wait for all the "perfect" but dull imagery produced by abusing content-aware fill in PS5.

Stunning sky, the ships are incidental.
I think, perhaps it might be a better picture without the ships, but with the ships heading out of the picture... they take the attention of the viewer out of the picture.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
jasonrandolph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 554


WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2010, 04:22:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
I think, perhaps it might be a better picture without the ships, but with the ships heading out of the picture... they take the attention of the viewer out of the picture.

I disagree.  While the sky is definitely the main focus of the image (as well it should be), the ferry gives it "life".  While it would be better to have the ferry heading into the picture, framing it differently would lose some of the sky, and to my eye, leaving out the ferry makes the image much more static.  I think it's fine as-is.
Logged

Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1881


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2010, 12:12:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ed Blagden
I don't understand the oppositional nature of your question.  It is a good sky - and therefore a good photo.  A sky like that demands to be photographed.  For me, the photo is about the sky, and the boats are incidental to the main subject and I wouldn't worry too much about them.

Very nice.


Ed


Thank you!

Your comments are close to my views. The tubs are not incidental. They are the instrument that brings the viewer into the pix and grounds them. Without them there is no sense of scale and the image is less interesting, even empty. But by the same token, if one focuses on the tubs to the exclusion of the remainder, they are not really, dare I say it, seeing the whole picture. . .
Logged

Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1881


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2010, 12:12:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
I think, perhaps it might be a better picture without the ships, but with the ships heading out of the picture... they take the attention of the viewer out of the picture.

Why do you think they are heading out?
Logged

Ed Blagden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2010, 01:29:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Justan
Thank you!

Your comments are close to my views. The tubs are not incidental. They are the instrument that brings the viewer into the pix and grounds them. Without them there is no sense of scale and the image is less interesting, even empty. But by the same token, if one focuses on the tubs to the exclusion of the remainder, they are not really, dare I say it, seeing the whole picture. . .

Agreed - my choice of the word "incidental" was a careless one.  The boats are important for the reasons you mention, but are minor supporting characters in a much bigger drama.  But they have to be there, nonetheless.  

I love sky shots, and one of the challenges is conveying the sense of scale (clouds are fractal-like, in that one cannot judge size / distance from appearance).  This composition works pretty well in this regard.  The fact that the boats appear so tiny in relation to the image makes the sky big.

Ed

Logged

Visit my Flickr page
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad