Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: compared to what  (Read 3426 times)
Bruce Cox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 695



WWW
« on: October 22, 2010, 08:50:56 AM »
ReplyReply

The attached is recent enough to still look good to me.  Bruce Cox
« Last Edit: October 22, 2010, 09:31:37 AM by Bruce Cox » Logged
Bruce Cox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 695



WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2010, 09:39:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for your comments.  I regret I do not understand posting or linking images here.  I will look for instructions.  Bruce
Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2010, 02:05:49 PM »
ReplyReply

The attached is recent enough to still look good to me.  Bruce Cox
I feel that the eye is not lead anywhere...
I think that deeper blacks would give it more impact (as viewed on my (profiled) Eizo).

One of my theories is that, when you start thinking that your work looks good, you stop improving. ...I can't remember when I last took a picture I liked for more than a week.

Some of the "great master" painters did similar "double aspect" pictures, but I never liked them.

In the left half of the picture the eye is led to the chair, which leads the eye nowhere... if the chair had not been partly obscured by the trunk, it might have linked the two sides of the picture.
Logged

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

Posts: 1730


« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2010, 02:13:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for your comments.  I regret I do not understand posting or linking images here.  I will look for instructions.  Bruce
On Snow leopard/Firefox I get a "The file 109.jpg could not be opened because it is empty" message.

Clicking on the picture just produces an address.

As the picture appears, it would seem that you have posted it correctly.
Logged

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

Posts: 695



WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2010, 07:15:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Some deeper blacks would be good, though my busy compositions tend to make me shy of contrast.  The attached is an earlier version with a little more black and elbow room; maybe the chair stuck to the tree will be a little less of a problem.  This version has other problems, which if I was at my own machine I would try to improve, but this is what I have here.  Bruce
Logged
Bruce Cox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 695



WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2010, 07:41:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I may have been too eager to hype my photo with high rez [though it was less than 2 megs] and that was why it didn't attach.  My pbase files are generally 1080 lines high.  Bruce
Logged
popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2010, 08:01:43 PM »
ReplyReply

What was it about this scene that inspired you to photograph it?
Logged
Bruce Cox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 695



WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2010, 09:30:34 AM »
ReplyReply

The radial aches of oaks and grape articulate the volume complexly, close the point of contradiction.  The plane is defined by the transparently fighting pattern of light and shade, versus the pattern of trampled or grassy ground.  Bruce
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6391



WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2010, 10:07:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Bruce, To put what Pop just said a slightly different way: what's the point of this picture? Or, with reference to your original post, what is there about it that "looks good to you?" I'm sure there was a reason why you shot it, and I'm sure there's a reason why you like it, but to me it looks like a random shot of some woods with a couple chairs and a lamp post or something similar on the right, supported by a brace and a cable.
Logged

Bruce Cox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 695



WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2010, 02:47:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not making it work if it looks random.  The advancing oak seemed a challenge and an opportunity.  It might be both frontally present and a three dimensional link to the other standing figures.  Rather than one point, ordering the circling elements with competing systems, such as flat pattern versus 3D, interests me.  Maybe if I push the cyan slider down farther in B&W conversion the chair will come unstuck from the tree and let the ground recede more easily.  Though it may take a lot more than that and I may take another picture some day.  Bruce
« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 02:58:12 PM by Bruce Cox » Logged
popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2010, 03:18:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not making it work if it looks random.  The advancing oak seemed a challenge and an opportunity.  It might be both frontally present and a three dimensional link to the other standing figures.  Rather than one point, ordering the circling elements with competing systems, such as flat pattern versus 3D, interests me.  Maybe if I push the cyan slider down farther in B&W conversion the chair will come unstuck from the tree and let the ground recede more easily.  Though it may take a lot more than that and I may take another picture some day.  Bruce
That's an impressive and complicated explanation. It might have been a better photograph had there not been as many disparate elements that don't serve the overall composition--like the chair, for example. Also, the scene was backlit, and the oak in the foreground was too large for a backlit object in that shot. You were forced to expose for the background, leaving the oak a big dark mass with little detail. In these situations I think it's best to pare down your vision and simplify the shot by including only those things which would comprise a compelling image. And be mindful of the light and how it's continually changing. You have too much in there that doesn't need to be there and the light was working against you.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 03:30:06 PM by popnfresh » Logged
Bruce Cox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 695



WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2010, 08:04:41 PM »
ReplyReply

That's an impressive and complicated explanation. It might have been a better photograph had there not been as many disparate elements that don't serve the overall composition--like the chair, for example. Also, the scene was backlit, and the oak in the foreground was too large for a backlit object in that shot. You were forced to expose for the background, leaving the oak a big dark mass with little detail. In these situations I think it's best to pare down your vision and simplify the shot by including only those things which would comprise a compelling image. And be mindful of the light and how it's continually changing. You have too much in there that doesn't need to be there and the light was working against you.
                               I agree that I haven't been able to make the trees in north light vivid enough.  Thanks.  Bruce
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6391



WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2010, 08:26:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Bruce, If the "advancing oak" is the subject of the picture why not concentrate on the advancing oak? As it is there's no focus point. It's just a rather cluttered piece of woodland. Seems to me that since the oak actually has character, your job is to illustrate and make clear to all of us the character of the oak.
Logged

Bruce Cox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 695



WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 24, 2010, 09:26:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Bruce, If the "advancing oak" is the subject of the picture why not concentrate on the advancing oak? As it is there's no focus point. It's just a rather cluttered piece of woodland. Seems to me that since the oak actually has character, your job is to illustrate and make clear to all of us the character of the oak.
            It might have been a good idea, but I did not intend the advancing oak to be the subject.  Rather, it was to be a partly open door to the "rather cluttered piece of woodland" in which I was trying to display layers of order.  I'll keep trying.  Bruce
Logged
Bruce Cox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 695



WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2010, 04:12:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Enlightened by our discussion I have increased the contrast by, among other things, skewing the color balances before converting to B&W.  I have increase the open ground as a percentage of the picture, mainly by cropping the top, so that the players will have more stage in common.  Bruce
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6391



WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2010, 04:20:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Bruce, Sorry but it's still just a rather cluttered piece of woodland, but with more contrast, and, as a result, less mid-tone detail in the area of zones 2, 3, and 4. I don't understand where the "layers of order" are. Who are the "players," what is the "stage," and what are the players playing? Do you see a focal point in this picture? If so, where is it?
Logged

Bruce Cox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 695



WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2010, 05:28:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Bruce, Sorry but it's still just a rather cluttered piece of woodland, but with more contrast, and, as a result, less mid-tone detail in the area of zones 2, 3, and 4. I don't understand where the "layers of order" are. Who are the "players," what is the "stage," and what are the players playing? Do you see a focal point in this picture? If so, where is it?
       The layers of order are in the mind of the beholder.  The players are the trees, posts, and other discernible objects.  The well defined, if not completely even, plane of the ground is the stage.  There is no focal point.  What would you do with one if you had if?  Bruce
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6391



WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 25, 2010, 06:55:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, that certainly clears things up.
Logged

popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #18 on: October 25, 2010, 07:37:13 PM »
ReplyReply

      The layers of order are in the mind of the beholder.  The players are the trees, posts, and other discernible objects.  The well defined, if not completely even, plane of the ground is the stage.  There is no focal point.  What would you do with one if you had if?  Bruce
I'd run it up the flagpole and see if Russ salutes it.  Grin
« Last Edit: October 25, 2010, 07:38:59 PM by popnfresh » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2010, 03:48:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd run it up the flagpole and see if Russ salutes it.  Grin

I didn't see any flagpole. I shall readjust my monitor.

Rob C
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad