August 12, 2014 at 9:26 am #7433
Just when I was wondering about how to tell you it needed the figures a little more centrally placed….you post this! Bravo! A much more balanced image. It was good, now it is very good! I wonder if Lightroom could just take that sunlight down a tad – but I’m nit-picking.
The fact that it is real (not sculpture) raises it several hundred percent – that really is the moment – par excellence. Nobody will be able to say “Oh, that’s the so and so statue”, good angle”; which is fainter praise.
By the way, don’t worry, there is no “taking apart”; all our judges (who have judged for us before) are very kind. Anyway, I can envisage nothing but awe over this one, especially if the (ugly old idea) quality is OK.August 12, 2014 at 10:45 am #7437
Merv >>> I’d be really interested to see a version of your first ‘Mother & Child + sunset’ photo, using a square crop based on the left-hand edge, which would perhaps give the silhouetted figures a more intense presence. Any chance of posting a quick square crop?August 12, 2014 at 11:17 am #7439
Ian >>> you mean like this?August 12, 2014 at 11:27 am #7440
Not quite, Merv – the frame’s now too close to the figures. What I had in mind was to keep the left edge of the picture just as it is, and use that to form a square (so you’d simply cut off the right-hand side of the picture, leaving the square on the left).
(Also, this new version looks darker – don’t change the brightness.)August 12, 2014 at 11:44 am #7441
You mean like this Ken? By the way, I changed nothing when I did the first crop, removing the light from the right hand edge just makes the image look darker.August 12, 2014 at 11:50 am #7442
Yes, that’s what I had in mind. (I’m Ian, by the way! 😉 )
As soon as I’d posted my remark about it looking darker, I realised – exactly as you say – that it was just the loss of the bright highlights that did for it!.
That’s why I thought the square based on the left edge would work – as indeed I think it does, very well. (It also has the effect of taking out the extreme brightness at the right of the frame that was bothering John a bit).
This version of the picture has good compositional geometry for the square aspect ratio, so I personally like it a lot. (But that’s just me!)
Thanks for doing the demonstration! 🙂August 12, 2014 at 11:58 am #7443
Oops, sorry Ian…names are not my strong point as just demonstrated!
One thing I’m learning is there are so many different ways you can treat a source photograph and that you’re very rarely going to strike a chord with everybody at the same time.
Looking back, I think I prefer the panoramic shot. It just does it for me!
Now, will someone please post some new photographs so we can move on 😉August 12, 2014 at 12:25 pm #7444
Yes, there’s often not ‘one right way’ to make a good picture, and it is to some extent a matter of personal preferences.
Don’t take all the attention personally – it’s very beneficial for all of us to think seriously about a photograph, to articulate our ideas about what makes good pictures, and what makes good pictures better, and to read other people’s ideas. Thanks for giving us the opprtunity to do something useful!August 12, 2014 at 1:03 pm #7445
As Ian said Melvin—whoops Mervin—you gave us a good photo to talk about. All good info for you to chew over and help ,make your own mind whats best. For my money–I prefer your first one posted–to nick pick–a tiny more space on the left–can”t alter that now. In the dark days–they used to say–turn the image upside down–if it looks balanced then-its about right. Its a very beautiful photograph–very well produced –and no doubt in the comps. it will have legs.August 12, 2014 at 8:13 pm #7449
I’ve been quiet busy for the last week or so I haven’t on the forum. I see there’s a lot of good photos from everyone on this thread. I think John’s shot of Tewkesbury Abbey is well balanced and I like the gentle lead in through the hole. I think Mervin’s silhoutte sunset shot is beautiful and works better in the letter box version. I wonder if the composition would work better if it was flipped? Might worth trying just to see. Nice shot of Ken’s church interior. It can be difficult photographing church interiors as they’re usually quite dark and contrasty places.August 13, 2014 at 8:49 am #7455
(Re-“Mother and Son”) The big enlargement has certainly lost too much quality – the dreaded haloes have appeared. Peter’s idea of flipping is well worth trying; the theory is that we “read” a picture L to R because of our training in reading text. You want the most interesting material to the R. Whether the theory is right or not it often does look better arranged like that. I have just put all our winning picture on one A3 print and it is noticeable that they mostly have subjects which sit to the right and look to the left. It may lessen the effect of the brighter area as a “draw”, since the eye encounters it first.
And don’t be embarrassed about us discussing this picture so much. As Ian says it leads us on the discussions which are useful generally and that is the point of the Forum – for me anyway.
My picture is nothing special – it is OK and would look good in an AV, or it might be used in an opening shot in a film about the abbey. It has the advantage of being a little unusual, a view via “nature” rather than via the smart abbey gardens, and the abbey is well placed to get that idea over, but it lacks that something extra to win a club competition. What would that be? Well, lighting would be the obvious one. It needs a warm sunset red, perhaps shadows modelling things nicely. Or weather; perhaps fog, even rain (if captured realistically). This would add that something extra and lift it. As it is I would expect it to get 16, or 17 at the most. It certainly shouldn’t get much less since it is a perfectly “good” picture composition wise and perfectly good technically. At Crewe PS no more, that extra something is missing.
Now, I could work hard on it for an hour or so; dodging, burning. I could print it; on a special paper. These things might move it up a notch, but it would still not get the top spot.
Mervin’s picture does have that special something.August 17, 2014 at 3:50 pm #7468
In our visits to the churches around Rutland Water last week I suppose any number of shots I took might be regarded as depicting spaces but here is just one. The church at Tickencote, near Stamford is remarkable for its enormous Norman arch over the chancel but outside it is also surprising for the rather idiosyncratic appearance it presents due to the free hand that the restorer was given. To the west side are three family (Wingfields) headstones. They are not equally spaced. The decorative pillars on the wall are.
Elsewhere I’ve said that part of the reason for looking at two of the churches was that Edwin Smith had photographed them and I wondered whether I would be drawn to the same things. Well, inside the archway I’ve referred to is such a dominant feature Edwin Smith just had to photograph it, but he must have stood on the pews to get the angle he used!
August 18, 2014 at 9:01 pm #7506
- This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by ajroyle.
The rhythms of the verticals work well, don’t they? And the treatment you’ve used is interesting – not sepia, but very desaturated? (There seems to be a hint of green left in the grass.)August 18, 2014 at 9:09 pm #7507
The treatment is just the “Creamtone” preset in Lr. I haven’t studied it in full detail but it does involve zapping up the colour temp and then totally desaturating.
I may have been slightly modified by treatments I made before applying the preset.
You are right, there is a pattern; 1, 2, 3 stones, 1, 2, 3, verticals on the building.August 18, 2014 at 9:16 pm #7508
As part of the war reparations, the Russians obtained the Zeiss factories and tooling. They took some Zeiss designers and technicians to Russia, and set up production at the Kiev camera works, where they used Zeiss designs to copy the famous cameras and lenses. (Some history)
The Helios-44 is a well-made copy of the excellent Carl Zeiss 58mm f/2 Biotar. Several variants were manufactured over a period of forty years, and thousands were produced, so they are readily available and amazingly inexpensive for such a good lens.
As for the pictured modern wooden version of a Saxon cross, it always makes me think of the biblical comment about the rich man and the eye of a needle.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.