November 12, 2017 at 7:01 pm #15258
Here’s a couple more to open a debate of compositional lines in photographs. when I saw this scene the curved jetta leading to the lighthouse caught my eye. Then I noticed how the roofs of the houses in the foreground point into the picture as well. But do you think the houses are too dominate and become the subject?
In the picture below I used the shadows as a lead in to the band stand. I like the way the trees help to fill in the blank sky. Do you think this works as it is or should have I got a bit closer to the band stand?November 13, 2017 at 11:31 am #15270
Love them both Peter. The first has such clean lines and the contre joure of the second conveys a lovely autumn feel. Very nice indeed.November 14, 2017 at 9:24 am #15272
Thanks very much Ken. I love autumn colours and must get out soon to capture some. In the picture of the bandstand the position from where I took it decided itself to a degree as I needed to avoid shooting right into the sun so found a bit of shade to stand in.November 17, 2017 at 10:26 am #15282
Just a couple more to try and tempt some comments.
In this photo the lines the waves make take you to the horizon, but is the main subject the people on the beech. So are the lines leading you away from the subject? So do see this?
I was playing around with my wacky wide angle lens at the Heritage Centre a few weeks ago and took this weird photo. The gun barrel is a strong lead in but what do you think of the rest of the picture? Is it too confusing?November 17, 2017 at 1:29 pm #15285
OK, Peter. Since you’ve gone to the trouble of asking…
The first picture is monochrome gold, isn’t it? It’s a lovely effect; and the picture is very atmospheric. I’d be inclined to emphasise the figures by cropping the top of the picture off just below the shoreline, so that there’s only the two people and the sea. But don’t you just wish the two people were standing at the bottom right rather than the bottom left! That’d make the descending diagonal of the wave edges do a compositional job as leading lines, wouldn’t it?
I’m less wowed by the gun. The ultra-wide-angle distortion of depth makes the muzzle brake on the end of the barrel strangely enormous and disembodied, and stretches the barrel into an unrecognisable thin wedge. But the main problem is, as you hint, the rather chaotic jumble of stuff below the sky line. (What happens if you crop off both sides, and just leave the gun and its barrel in a tall vertical frame, I wonder?)November 17, 2017 at 4:59 pm #15286
Yes the far shore detail is too attractive and spoils the lines and mood. You could flip it to answer Ian’s point. It is a good shot.
I also agree about the gun, where the gun itself gets lost in all the detail around. So we are left with the barrel as an impertinence rather than a lead-in.
We are going to our niece’s wedding tomorrow but I won’t let the discussion about what-is-white worry me too much. If it looks OK it is OK, but that would not do for someone who is photographing paintings for a museum catalogue or, well , a wedding photographer, which I am definitely not. I find it so remarkable that our brains can adjust for colour temperature and, even as your lenses become tinted with cataracts you can still judge colours well.
We also judge tones by proximity and I vividly remember preparing a visual aid for a talk to the Club about perception to illustrate this. I decided to use Photoshop to cut out one part oh the picture and move it to a another area. Both seemed the same in situ but I completely astonished myself as I moved the little cut out square – it seemed to magically change in tone as it travelled across the picture, suddenly looking nothing like its original shade. I had to repeat the exercise several times before I could literally believe my eyes!November 17, 2017 at 7:25 pm #15287
Have a lovely day John–take camera. Quite right and all that–but again—desaturate the blue in Ralphs photo and it lifts into another class. Judges so quick to nit-pick-yet so often miss a critical point. We must recognise whatever the brain persuades– if the image has produced natural blue or incorrectly set on camera to produce excess blue. The digital cameras are so well equipped with facility in adjusting the white balance but not used in the way we used to stick filters on to compensate. DYSW-I-M. Tomo–water is ok if taken in the right spirit. BTW still going on –sorry–but look how dark blue are the towels spread on the rocks in Ralphs image–and see how white ie–brides dress- when blue taken down.
November 18, 2017 at 8:52 am #15291
- This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by KEN LAST.
Many thanks for your constructive criticism on my last two photographs. I agree with all your comments. In the seascape I do now realize how above the horizon distracts and spoils the image and it would have been better if the couple had been below a leading line of a wave into the picture.
The picture of the gun was just an experiment with a very wide angle lens, but it does teach you how not to do it and what to look out for.
Regarding the blueness in Ralph’s photo. I did wonder when I first saw it whether it needed warming a bit, but would that spoil the cool atmosphere it has?November 18, 2017 at 9:31 am #15292
Blueness in Ralph’s photo… Well, it could possibly be a bit stronger than the blue shade you’d actually see, but it is certainly the case that shadows on snow on a bright day actually do look blue-ish, because of the colour reflected faintly from a blue sky. So ‘fixing’ that blueness with white balance or other tonal adjustments actually makes them less natural (though it may, of course, create a picture that’s warmer, if that’s the look you want to fabricate). That was the whole point of the post, ‘Natural light isn’t white’.November 20, 2017 at 1:46 pm #15298
Here is my entry,
StephenNovember 20, 2017 at 1:48 pm #15300
Love your beach picture – great!
Could it be cropped top and right?November 20, 2017 at 6:10 pm #15301
Battersea Power Station circa 1982 BD (before digital)November 20, 2017 at 6:43 pm #15302November 21, 2017 at 6:35 am #15305
Dunno about leading lines, that last entry, or rather the footnote made me feel so nostalgic for the Olympus OM1. What a gem. Used one for almost 20 years and what I have now is only superior because it is digital.
Stephen: lovely shot where the “line” gives us depth to the image.November 21, 2017 at 9:57 am #15306
Great set of images from the last three members. All use the lines in different ways to achieve the same objective.
I love the graduated colours in Stephens photo and find that I look at the largest pylon first then am lead into the background. I normally read a photo left to right so this one is the other way around for me but still ‘works’ well.
I like Ken’s radiating spikes which nicely frames the chimneys and has a considered vignette to hold it all together.
I’m sure Ian’s classic photo of Sandbach’s church has been taken many times. I know I’ve taken this photo before. It’s a great angle with the row of houses leading to the church. The small classic OM1 was up there with the big boys and favoured by street photographers if I remember correctly. Like John says it was the Fuji of the ’70s.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.