Have another one. Nothing done to it other than a little sharpening and contrast adjustment (+.1).
ISO100 1/45 f5.6
ISO100 1/45 f5.6
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Fortnightly Challenge - March 5 thru March 18 - Topic: Perspective/Point of View
- Thread starter Designer Dale
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
EXIF Summary: 1/125s f/7.4 ISO200 71.2mm (35mm eq:280mm)
First try here, please be gentle
Chef Jay
Got me laughing. Well done.
I posted an image I took on the same morning into the POTD thread. Took this one sans color polarizing filter. Was closer (and on my belly) which took out the distraction of the trees. Shot at 17mm.
Not sure if the rule against 2 images a day applies to this thread.
This is a variation on the same theme. The color polarizer was obviously present for this shot, giving it a somewhat cartoonish appearance. Lots of lines lead the eye into the capitol, but the building itself is so small that I'm not sure this ends up being a good point of view for the subject matter. Does the overall composition with the trees framing the building end up being more pleasing than a shot taken closer where the capitol fills the frame? I can't decide if this shot works or doesn't work for me overall. Interested to hear what others think.
I'm having fun with the new Nikon 16-35. I'd never really played with ultra-wide angle before. My 24-70 is the lens I use most, but I wanted to experiment with the ultra-wide side of things. I'm finding it MUCH more challenging to shoot with this lens compared to any of my other lenses. Composition is much, much harder. Even slight tilting dramatically changes the composition, with regard to what is in the frame and the distortion of elements in the frame. I'm also finding that it requires much more effort in thinking about foreground, midground, and background. I have a great deal of learning to do....
Not sure if the rule against 2 images a day applies to this thread.
This is a variation on the same theme. .
I like to see two images when they have a purpose like comparison. It works here, but not in POTD.
I liked the first image in POTD, but thought the polarizer mede it look a bit weird or something. The low view here is compelling. I like the use of your wide-angle. I have the 17-55 kit lens with my Canon, but don't use it all that much. I will dust it off for the next bit of sun we get.
Dale
Thanks Dale. I'm struggling with deciding whether the added color of the polarizer (with the added "punch" it conveys to the sky) offsets the unnatural feel it gives to the image. How important is color? How important is realism? The shots I took without the filter are more "real" regarding what I was was actually seeing, but they are significantly more boring. Realism vs art. Is this image so abnormal that it ruins the impression for the viewer?
Thanks for the comment, Bruce.
I looked at that before I posted the pic, but it was way too harsh with the end points pulled in. It forces the white point down to 196 from 255. I don't like to go below 240 for that. My OP is what it looked like. There are light boards cropped off the bottom that are blown out with even a bit of pinching. I tend to stick to the "That's what it looks like" school of photography, which comes from learning on film many moons before computing came into play.
Dale
I think deep diver's levels adjustment went a bit too far, but for most photos, a nearly complete histogram does look best. As for the original photo: there is some real competition going on between the brighter, slightly OOF board (plus the bright leaf pointing to it) and the darker, in-focus figure.
I can't resist commenting on the "that's what it looks like" school of photography. I don't believe there is such a thing as capturing what something "looks like." Cameras can't even capture what the eye and brain might register for a particular person, let alone some 'reality' that would be true for any viewer. In my view, all photos are interpretations. So the goal of the photographer should be to produce a compelling image by whatever means necessary. I think it does photographers a disservice to suggest that all we do is merely 'record' or 'duplicate' that which already exists.
I understand what you meant is that you prefer an appearance of naturalism, but I would like to stress that such an appearance is also a contrivance. You have a lot of decisions to make at the moment of capture, any one of which might substantially alter the resulting photograph and yet still make it look 'natural.' Some images that appear very 'natural' are nonetheless the products of substantial manipulation, and conversely, some images that are "straight out of the camera" look utterly surreal.
Yes, I'm on a soapbox right now, but this is an issue that I really take to heart. The more that people think of photographers as button-pushers, the less credit we get for being creators.
Have another one. Nothing done to it other than a little sharpening and contrast adjustment (+.1).
ISO100 1/45 f5.6
I like the orange and blue colors, but the white background makes the photo seem rather stark and vacant. Also, that little sliver of something in the lower left corner is distracting.
EXIF Summary: 1/125s f/7.4 ISO200 71.2mm (35mm eq:280mm)
First try here, please be gentle
Chef Jay
Welcome to the challenge, Chef Jay. OK, I'll be gentle.
Try positioning your subject so that the 'point of resolution' (in this case the eye of the chicken) doesn't fall right in the center of the frame. This kind of framing makes the image rather static; since the viewer's eye is naturally drawn to the center of any symmetrically contained space (namely, all photographs with four edges), you need something outside of the center to get the eye moving around the frame.I really like the whimsy here, and the composition works. The lighting is going in the right direction, but the blown highlights spoil it a bit for me.
Got me laughing. Well done.
I posted an image I took on the same morning into the POTD thread. Took this one sans color polarizing filter. Was closer (and on my belly) which took out the distraction of the trees. Shot at 17mm.
Not sure if the rule against 2 images a day applies to this thread.
This is a variation on the same theme. The color polarizer was obviously present for this shot, giving it a somewhat cartoonish appearance. Lots of lines lead the eye into the capitol, but the building itself is so small that I'm not sure this ends up being a good point of view for the subject matter. Does the overall composition with the trees framing the building end up being more pleasing than a shot taken closer where the capitol fills the frame? I can't decide if this shot works or doesn't work for me overall. Interested to hear what others think.
I'm having fun with the new Nikon 16-35. I'd never really played with ultra-wide angle before. My 24-70 is the lens I use most, but I wanted to experiment with the ultra-wide side of things. I'm finding it MUCH more challenging to shoot with this lens compared to any of my other lenses. Composition is much, much harder. Even slight tilting dramatically changes the composition, with regard to what is in the frame and the distortion of elements in the frame. I'm also finding that it requires much more effort in thinking about foreground, midground, and background. I have a great deal of learning to do....
Polarized skies can often look great, but the color in this case is rather unsettling. So I prefer the more natural looking sky of these two, but both images have a very harsh symmetry that makes them quite static. It really helps with these kinds of shots if you have clouds or people or something in the photo to break up the symmetry.
BTW, did you switch to Nikon recently? Weren't you using a 5D Mark II not long ago?
Can you see where I'm going?
Camera: Canon PowerShot G10
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/800)
Aperture: f/4.0
Focal Length: 8.1 mm
ISO Speed: 80
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: Auto, Did not fire
Camera: Canon PowerShot G10
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/800)
Aperture: f/4.0
Focal Length: 8.1 mm
ISO Speed: 80
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: Auto, Did not fire
Agree 100% on all of the above. The photo was adjusted in post to bring out both the sky and my reflection. When I make a statement like "That's what it looked like" I should say "This is the image and colors I perceived at the moment of capture". They mean essentially the same, but the latter indicates the thought that went into the final product better. I've grown to the point where I have a Post strategy in mind when I hit the shutter. My camera has limitations and I'm learning how to compensate for them.
See my POTD post and let me know about my exposure.
Dale
Can you see where I'm going?
Camera: Canon PowerShot G10
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/800)
Aperture: f/4.0
Focal Length: 8.1 mm
ISO Speed: 80
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: Auto, Did not fire
Not sure if you mean figuratively or literally, but the answer in either case would be 'no.' So do tell: where are you going?
Glad to hear that you're starting to visualize all the way through before taking the picture.
OK, I'll go have a look at your POTD post.
Welcome to the challenge, Chef Jay. OK, I'll be gentle.
Thanks Phrasikleia, I will try to remember that next time I am out taking pictures. Hopefully soon.
Thanks JD
Sorry for the delay in responding, getting back from out of town and going back to work left me kind of busy.
The Dinosaur is probably(very wild guess) 60' to 70' away from the buildings.
Was able to get about 5' away with tripod set quite low.
Here's another when i first started playing the camera. I liked the perspective but not the clarity.
Sorry for the delay in responding, getting back from out of town and going back to work left me kind of busy.
The Dinosaur is probably(very wild guess) 60' to 70' away from the buildings.
Was able to get about 5' away with tripod set quite low.
Here's another when i first started playing the camera. I liked the perspective but not the clarity.
Attachments
Yeah, the dino pic pulls off the POV thing much better than this one. Probably because of the angle between the ball and the players and then the blurriness of the ball makes the effect not work.
This is one I was trying to load yesterday but had the attachment button problem. I took it Saturday while rock climbing. I was going for a POV thing, trying to make the small hold with climbers chalk on it look like a mountain top. I had kind of a tilt shift thing in mind but it didn't really work out that way. I don't think there is enough depth (foreground to background) to make the tilt shift work. Any way, it was the thought that counts a little
Attachments
Don't stray too far from the soap box. I think we all need to be reminded of this periodically.
I know what you mean. But at 7:30 am on a Saturday morning, I was the only person out and about. Even the birds were still in bed sleeping. I took them to help out a friend's daughter who was doing a report on Rhode Island. She wanted a shot of the capitol so I stopped by on my way to work last weekend. She preferred the shots with the crazy blue sky, but that may reflect more on her being twelve years old rather than her taste.
Oh, I've always been a Nikon person going back to film. I think I still have an N90s lying around somewhere.
I also think your adjustments went a little to far
, but I do see that you feel the original is a little flat.I think I would take out the paint brush and selectively increase contrast/saturation where needed and in moderation.
Just my opinion though
The perspective/pov works well Dale, the floating wood adds interest and the framing from the reeds.
That's one lucky 12-yr-old.
Don't know why I had you pegged as a Canon guy. I must be confusing you with someone else. I was just curious if maybe you were one of those people who plays both sides of the fence.
