Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Cactus and Ruins  (Read 3987 times)
urbanpicasso
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64



WWW
« on: February 12, 2012, 10:29:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Well done! About the lens.... Sony or Tamron?
db
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2012, 03:19:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Well done! About the lens.... Sony or Tamron?
db


If it mattered, you should be able to tell, non?

;-)

Rob C
Logged

urbanpicasso
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2012, 06:54:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If it mattered, you should be able to tell, non?

;-)

I was considering a walk about, if that matters.
Thanks for your thoughts!
db
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2012, 08:02:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I was considering a walk about, if that matters.
Thanks for your thoughts!
db

David, I've been pondering a walkabout camera for about as long as I can remember. The closest I ever got was around '55/'56 as a boy, when I bought a Voigtlander Vito B (with financial help from my girlfriend!) with its fixed 50mm Colour-Skopar. After that, it was all downhill, with Exaktas, Nikons, 'blads, Rolleis, Pentax and Mamiyas and never an easy option ever again!

I'm still looking for an easy option, one that allows me to carry it around without feeling that I'm either posing, further crippling an already failing body, or am a tourist. I don't believe it exists - the Holy Grail is probably more likely to be found one day.

So yes, to answer your suggestion, it does matters, and perhaps if enough of us seek the same simple photo solution instead of settling for another damned system, we might eventually have it. But, as I suggested, don't let's hold our breaths - there's more money in providing systems...

;-)

Rob C
Logged

dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1213


« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2012, 06:05:46 PM »
ReplyReply

What do people see in this photograph that they find exemplary?

Aside from the foreground cactus (front left) and the tree back and to the right, in B&W it seems a bit of a mess?

Or at least I find it hard to discern anything to note aside from those two elements. I just don't know what I'm supposed to look at or see or even what the subject is...
Logged
jbgeach
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2012, 10:06:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Dreed,

Good question. I enjoyed looking at this photo for several minutes. After coming to the forum to see what other thought, there was nothing and I saw your post. So I went back and took a minute to find what I found interesting.

First your eye is drawn to the cactus in the lower left, the wall of the ruins then walks your eye horizontally across the frame to the jagged tree in the upper right. At this point the sky catches my eye and I am drawn back to the left of the photo where I see the trees on the left.

It is an excellent example of composition used to highlight multiple subjects in one photo. In my opinion there is not one subject in this photo there are five: the cactus, wall, little tree, sky and big tree. All work together to give the feel of a rugged mysterious desert.

Jonathan
Logged
Dohmnuill
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22



« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2012, 11:10:58 PM »
ReplyReply

jbg,

I guess I'm one of those folk who don't want to sit and meticulously work out which element of a picture is first grabbing my eyeball,  then have it handballed (with a slight anatomical transference there) on to the next lurking element, then the next....

Would everyone follow the same pathway? I'm guessing you'd say yes because you claim it is, "an excellent example of composition used to highlight multiple subjects in one photo". Phew.

What are the outstanding characteristics of such exemplars? 

Is there a body of such snaps* where this clever technique exists, so we can recognise and practise the methodology?

Cheers,

Dohmnuill.

* I use that term because I'm starting to grow weary of every man and his dog "making" photographs. Gravitas Central. I think A. Adams might have used the term, and now it seems to belong to anyone who implies their shots are exquisitely crafted masterpieces of compostion with ne'er a hint of chance or an unwanted object in view. I rather think only the painter has that sort of near 100%. control.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5419


WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2012, 11:24:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Would everyone follow the same pathway?

Who cares...the bottom line is, does the photo work?

If so, cool...if not, delete and move on.

I've shot alongside of Mike enough to understand what one person sees isn't alway what another person sees...and that's what is cool about shooting together. Sometimes stuff works and other times it doesn't. No need for angst and gut wrenching when it doesn't, just keeps shooting. And delete the stuff that sucks...Mike has a high success rate cause he shoots a lot (and has a good eye). Then there's also this thing called timing and anticipation. Get the shot...but keep looking!
Logged
daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2012, 11:35:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I dunno, I can't stop coming back and looking at the thing. The textures and tones keep reminding me of some dreamstate image that I can't quite recall. Something that balances on the edge of real and surreal. Visceral and compelling, but damnfino why!
Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1213


« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2012, 01:27:06 AM »
ReplyReply

First your eye is drawn to the cactus in the lower left, the wall of the ruins then walks your eye horizontally across the frame to the jagged tree in the upper right. At this point the sky catches my eye and I am drawn back to the left of the photo where I see the trees on the left.

I wonder if the ease of seeing the wall is screen dependent?

At first I didn't even notice the wall (ruins) and actually had to go back and look for it after I'd seen it mentioned..
Logged
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2012, 02:47:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Busy images like this can look really cool printed large. Sometimes they struggle in a small web format.
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2525


« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2012, 03:06:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Well done! About the lens.... Sony or Tamron?
db

Even if someone told you that it was the Sony how would you know if the Tamron would have done a better job....or worse?  Wink
Logged

Paulo Bizarro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2012, 04:49:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I like the image a lot. There is the diagonal provided by the wall; there is the rough and weathered textures of the vegetation and the wall, that provide a connection between the several elements. And there is also the texture in the sky and clouds. To me, this image has dynamism (does this word exist?) and texture.
Logged
urbanpicasso
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64



WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2012, 07:23:56 AM »
ReplyReply

 The composition, to me, is excellent. It carry's the eye well, moving me about the entire image . While the space to the lower right allows a bit of breathing room, visually walking me into the frame. The pair of cactus, as well as the opposing trees offer great balance while the wall bonds these nicely textured elements together.
Now, as far as my original question goes... There seems to be better than average corner to corner sharpness than what I would expect from a so called "super zoom", and I like what I see. I know there are many that want to read more into that question, but it really was quite simple.. A or B. Thanks for your insights! Roll Eyes

db
« Last Edit: February 14, 2012, 07:37:08 AM by davidbogdan » Logged
Dohmnuill
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22



« Reply #14 on: February 14, 2012, 08:43:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I asked the question whether others would follow the same pathway because I thought I was missing some obvious clues which were characteristic of a technique "used to highlight multiple subjects in one photo".  I'd never heard of it before. It sounded well-established and this was but another exemplar.
I rather regret I asked the question in light of the surprising answer, and I guess I should curb my curiosity. I have supervised many Masters and Ph.D students (Biochem.) and curiosity is a vital everyday requisite. However, I'm not too serious or snakey, this is just a (life-long) past-time, for me at least.

My shooting tends to follow a percentage success rate too (unfortunately very low..), and I agree deletion of those images that don't make an immediate connection is a good idea (certainly made easy and cheap by digital). If there is any technique which helps organise the often numerous subjects, particularly within a landscape, whether to emphasise them, or more often, to highlight certain ones only, then I'm tempted to learn more.
"Please sir, may I have more?"
Whack.
Ouch.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5419


WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2012, 11:31:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I rather regret I asked the question in light of the surprising answer, and I guess I should curb my curiosity. I have supervised many Masters and Ph.D students (Biochem.) and curiosity is a vital everyday requisite. However, I'm not too serious or snakey, this is just a (life-long) past-time, for me at least.

Well, you shouldn't take what I write personally nor should you give up trying to learn. There are classic sources of basic design and composition (titles of which escape me off hand). But the point I was trying to make is look, don't think. Too many photographers spend too much time thinking about stuff instead of working on instinct. Course, that does presuppose one has "instincts" :~)

Quote
If there is any technique which helps organise the often numerous subjects, particularly within a landscape, whether to emphasise them, or more often, to highlight certain ones only, then I'm tempted to learn more.

There's a bunch already here at LuLa;
Photographic Composition Introduction by JP Caponigro

Introduction to Composition by Alain Briot

15 Thoughts on Composition by Alain Briot

In fact, just do a search of the LuLa site on the term "composition".

Lots of reading to do...but don't forget to also keep shooting! See, it doesn't need to hurt...
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2012, 01:01:52 PM »
ReplyReply



My shooting tends to follow a percentage success rate too (unfortunately very low..), and I agree deletion of those images that don't make an immediate connection is a good idea (certainly made easy and cheap by digital). If there is any technique which helps organise the often numerous subjects, particularly within a landscape, whether to emphasise them, or more often, to highlight certain ones only, then I'm tempted to learn more.
"Please sir, may I have more?"
Whack.

Ouch.



Dear Oliver,

Throwing away things that don't ring lunch bells at first glance is a huge error of judgement.

My cover/Home shot (website) and a further two body crops were made from a single Kodachrome that, at first glance and with the original purpose in mind, failed to make the grade. Fortunately for me, this was film, and not a huge problem to retain the slide in a sleeve along with others from the same little set. It's too damned easy to dump files; you never know what might come in useful nor when. I suspect this cavalier attitude to one's oeuvre is aided and abetted by the perceived cheapness of digital exposure.

Rob C



Logged

Dohmnuill
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22



« Reply #17 on: February 14, 2012, 03:35:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Dear Rob C (and definitely not Mr Beadle)),

You're right, of course.  Perhaps I should have added the ones I have examined at some length and have similar shots taken from the same viewpoint at the same time. Actually, it's quite hard to do because there's that thought one might be throwing away some "treasure".

At first look over the thumbnails from a folder, I tend to go for the ones that have obvious compositional and lighting appeal; thumbnails can aid that selection process by reducing the clutter.
However, like you, on second or third revisiting of files I have retrieved shots which don't look so hot as thumbnails but turn out to be very pleasing after all. Of course, a bit of Artful Dodging and burning in etc is required.

As I said in my second post, the % success rate is not high (by my standards anyway - maybe 2-5%). And as Mr Schewe espoused, it's not a bad idea to go for what innately looks good.

Back to the gruel,

Dohmnuill.

Logged
Dohmnuill
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22



« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2012, 04:09:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Dear Mr Schewe,

Thank you for the references. I tend to read the main articles but should make much more use of other resources in this site.

Couldn't agree more about the value of keeping shooting; the lessons learned by trial and error are often the most powerful, and if a bit of luck comes along, so much the better. And one needs to be there for the luck. That practise obviously never "hurts".

The philosophical points (and I don't lose any sleep over it) between photography and painting are interesting nevertheless, as are all the techniques involved. Many are shared. As with painting, if there are little "tricks" which one can possibly harness with photography without spending hours (never happens)) agonising or applying them with a shot, I certainly use them. Some would argue the fait accompli aspect of photography - having to use what you are given -  makes painting a high-brow art and photography a middle-brow one. More semantics, I suspect.

Certainly nothing to take personally, and I promise to eat more gruel,

Dohmnuill (South Australia).
 



 
Logged
jbgeach
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #19 on: March 05, 2012, 04:10:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Dohmnuil -
Sorry for the delayed response, but I have been otherwise occupied.

Most people read a picture like a book, starting from the left to the right. The eye does tend to naturally follow lines and the can help accentuate or hide other elements in the photo.

I am far from an expert in composition, however, I was just trying to put to paper what I was experiencing. Sometimes this is a difficult task, but someone else was asking and I came to the forum to complement the composition
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad