Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: One Man and His Friends  (Read 1559 times)
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 878


« on: May 07, 2012, 11:24:34 AM »
ReplyReply


Teguise, Lanzarote, Canary Islands.

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6291


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2012, 11:31:53 AM »
ReplyReply

It is a well-seen scene, but I am not sure that all that contrast was necessary. A bit more detail, both in the animals and the man, might be beneficial.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 878


« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2012, 12:37:48 PM »
ReplyReply


Well spotted, Slobodan, I posted the wrong one. Even this may be a little too strong but I'm a sucker for contrast. Any better, do you think? Maybe a little too light?
Logged

amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 874


« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2012, 01:05:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I prefer the more contrasty one, myself, but I mostly don't care if a little detail is lost here and there. The image is a good one, either way.

There's something strange going on on the left side of the frame, the image seems to go soft over here, in a slightly eye-straining way. Again, I don't much care about sharp versus soft, but the fact that the degree of softness changes is a little disorienting. Is this a crop of the left-hand side of the frame of a photograph made with a lens that's soft around the edges?
Logged

- Andrew
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6553



WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2012, 02:58:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes on the second one, Seamus. Wonderful shot. Contrast is okay up to a point, but good mid-tones are important. I don't see the softness on the left side of the picture. Maybe it's my 82-year-old eyes.
Logged

seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 878


« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2012, 06:38:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There's something strange going on on the left side of the frame, the image seems to go soft over here, in a slightly eye-straining way. Again, I don't much care about sharp versus soft, but the fact that the degree of softness changes is a little disorienting. Is this a crop of the left-hand side of the frame of a photograph made with a lens that's soft around the edges?

In answer to your query, amolitor, there is no crop on the left side and a bit of a crop on the right. The camera was a Fuji X Pro1 with 18 mm lens which has a reputation for being a bit soft at the edges but it's the only wide angle available at the moment so one has to put up with its shortcomings.  Here's a colour rendition almost straight from the camera with the same crop applied - not much more post processing done.

Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 4122



« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2012, 01:17:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Couldn't you have lent him a couple of dalmatian dogs?

Jeremy
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6291


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2012, 01:41:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I actually prefer the color version, somehow suits the subject better. In B&W, the high contrast-manufactured drama, and especially the nuclear mushroom cloud in the upper right-hand corner tend to overpower everything else and sidetrack the meaning.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Riaan van Wyk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 682



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2012, 01:55:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Composition wise the donkey on the right hand side feels unneeded, there is more than enough happening in the left three quarters of the frame to make this a winner, there is the "tension between the subjects ( the man and his dog, the second donkey and goat) that I so often read about that the foreground subject seems out of place. Colour seems to be a better option for me too.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2012, 02:42:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Composition wise the donkey on the right hand side feels unneeded, there is more than enough happening in the left three quarters of the frame to make this a winner, there is the "tension between the subjects ( the man and his dog, the second donkey and goat) that I so often read about that the foreground subject seems out of place. Colour seems to be a better option for me too.




But the real question is: who peed the pavement?

Rob C
Logged

fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1377


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2012, 04:09:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Really interesting shot, but I am not thrilled with the lack of detail in the mans body. He is lost in a shadow and you can't see any texture to his fabrics or shape to his arm or legs or wrinkles or anything. It was worse in the first very high contrast scene, but I would see if there is even the smallest amount of detail available in the shadows of the man's black clothes.  With that improvement, the scene would make for a really interesting story.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1157


« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2012, 05:13:46 PM »
ReplyReply

It is a wonderful scene regardless of how it is rendered.  I must confess a hankering for the first B&W which has echoes of Koudelka.

Logged
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 878


« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2012, 04:06:13 AM »
ReplyReply


Thanks, everybody, for your input - really appreciated.

Taking everything on board, I'll go for a colour rendition with the recommended crop concentrating on the action on the left side which, I agree, has enough going on to carry the image. I'm only sorry I didn't move in closer at the time. I was using an 18 mm prime on an X Pro 1 (28 mm equivalent). It's taking a bit of getting used to after years carrying a Canon 5D and 24-105 L lens with IS. No comfort zone now!
You gotta move your butt...

Quote
Really interesting shot, but I am not thrilled with the lack of detail in the mans body. He is lost in a shadow and you can't see any texture to his fabrics or shape to his arm or legs or wrinkles or anything. It was worse in the first very high contrast scene, but I would see if there is even the smallest amount of detail available in the shadows of the man's black clothes.  With that improvement, the scene would make for a really interesting story.

Fike, I tried to extract some detail in the man's clothing and may have succeeded to a small degree. I don't have a RAW of this because Lighthroom doesn't yet support the Fuji, so I'm curtailed by the JPEG limitations in that regard. Also, the man was wearing very dark cloths with very little detail to be had in the first place. Any more detail is wishful thinking, I fear.

Quote
But the real question is: who peed the pavement?

Rob C

Stop taking the piss, Rob C - any horse's ass could tell you that.









« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 04:07:56 AM by seamus finn » Logged

seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 878


« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2012, 04:33:24 AM »
ReplyReply



Ah hell, here's a bw too:

Logged

WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1157


« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2012, 07:09:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Seamus,

For me, the crop has changed an engaging slice of life into a predictable and mannered decoration.

Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 874


« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2012, 07:32:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I loved the foreground donkey. The crop definitely makes the frame more formally balanced, but it also makes the image a bit mannered. It feels more formal now, which is both good and bad. Getting rid of the cloud definitely helps, it was bugging me too, although not enough to mention is.

The big problem for me is that the lens' defects at the edges are now even more pronounced and obvious. Normally I don't give a damn about technical nonsense, sharpness, and so on. A little softness and distortion won't much damage a good image, and the best lens in the world won't save a bad one. Still, with this particular image you have a noticeable change as your eye crosses the frame, and I find that maddeningly distracting. If I had never noticed it, it probably would not bother me at all, but now that I have, I can see nothing else!

I hesitate to say the cropped image is worse, but it is certainly a different image and I find it less organic, less comfortable feeling, more cold and formal.
Logged

- Andrew
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 878


« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2012, 08:53:10 AM »
ReplyReply



Ah well, I guess you can't win. No doubt Russ will admonish me now for not sticking with my first instinct.  As for the lens, nothing I can do about that though I wonder is the distraction referred to by amolitor a dark blurry-edged stone in the building just behind the man's midsection.
Logged

amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 874


« Reply #17 on: May 09, 2012, 08:58:34 AM »
ReplyReply

You certainly will not please everyone, or even most people! If you're pleasing everyone, your photo is probably terrible Wink
Logged

- Andrew
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6291


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2012, 10:24:20 AM »
ReplyReply

+1 for the original composition, in color. The cropped version now contains a big hole in the middle. It is static, flat, i.e., lacks the sense of depth the rightmost donkey contributed to.

As for the alleged lack of sharpness on the left side, I really do not see it. What I do see, however, is a strong blue/yellow fringing, especially visible in the stones to the left of his face (our left), something that can be easily corrected. I think that it is the fringing that creates the impression of blurriness.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 10:26:25 AM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 6553



WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2012, 11:45:23 AM »
ReplyReply

+1
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad