Prev: Who will bail on DSLRs first, Sony or Olympus?
Next: best way to market pics ...
From: Robert Spanjaard on 28 Jun 2010 13:08
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:24:22 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

> Like everyone else, I do like the pictures. But just in case your
> objective was to tease out a bit more substantive criticism than the
> saccharine attaboys the others have been laying on you ...
>
> 1. This picture is nicely done, but more than a little dull. I think it
> would have helped a lot to make the windmill the focus of attention,
> which I guess would have required a vantage point down near the bend of
> the canal, where the windmill is. I also would have preferred the grass
> in the foreground to be less OOF, but recognize that it might have been
> technically infeasible or even a deliberate stylistic choice.

It was a deliberate choice. In fact, I think the grass is less disturbing
this way than it would have been in focus. I also think the far
riverbank, the bend itself and the sunlight are enough to give the mill
all the attention it requires.

I would even have shot it with a larger lens opening if I could, but at
1/4000s, 100 ISO and no ND-filters available my camera just couldn't
handle more than this.

> 2. Another nice shot, but a tractor is a tractor, and this one doesn't
> have much context. I'd like to see enough of the field to see what the
> tractor has been doing (or is about to do).

I didn't want to give an impression of this tractor doing anything.
The tractor itself probably doesn't want to think about doing anything
either. And that's what I was trying to capture.

> 3. This one is compositionally excellent, but something seems amiss in
> the perspective of the house, probably due to wide-angle effect. I'm
> tempted to suggest a half degree of clockwise rotation, but that would
> probably throw off the reflection of the tree behind the bridge. Maybe
> you can't have it both ways.

There is no wide-angle effect. This image was shot at 50mm on an APS-C
body, so it's about to 80mm on 35mm-film.
You're probably right about the tilt. I'll have to look at the full-size
version to check it someday.

> 4. I can see leaving the background OOF, but I can't see doing it to
> the white sheep. The brown sheep just aren't dominant enough, nor
> positioned well enough, to allow them to function as the sole focus of
> the picture.

Positioning them as outsiders, and at the same time giving them all the
focus by limiting the DOF, is a deliberate choice again.

> 5. This is a real winner. I might have tried to brighten the bottom or
> cropped it a little, but that's just a nit. The colors work very well,
> and the aura is more that of a 17th-century Japanese house than of a
> Dutch greenhouse. Worth hanging on the wall. (And a good desktop
> wallpaper. Too bad you didn't have it in time.)

The image loses a lot of appeal if you brighten the bottom. The dark
bottom contrasts with the light shining through the greenhouse, making
the light stronger. Ofcourse, the neccessity of the dark area is more
visible on a light background, so it may lose its importance in this
display.

> 6. Again the greenhouse is a strong element, but I don't think the rest
> of the picture lives up to it. The green is too relentless and is
> borderline dark and muddy. I think I would have shown more of the
> greenhouse and less of the orchard. But that's just me, and the picture
> is reasonably effective as displayed.

The greens aren't dark and muddy at all on my screen.
The orchard, especially combined with the lines of the greenhouse, is a
nice display of straight lines in agriculture. You would lose the
straight lines in the fields if you sacrificed some of it for more
greenhouse. The greenhouse doesn't need a bigger display.

Thanks for taking so much time to comment on these images. I may not
agree with you (this time), but I do appreciate it.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: Robert Spanjaard on 28 Jun 2010 13:18
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:17:31 +0100, Pete wrote:

> Overall, a most enjoyable set of images. Of particular technical merit:
> colour balance, saturation, light and tone. None of the images has a
> "digital" or Velvia look, which makes a welcome change.

Thanks. I've used the same RAW-converter (UFRaw) for about five years
now, and I think it's starting to pay off. It helps a lot when you feel
"at home" with your software. Using a different dark room every time
probably wouldn't help in the film days. :-)

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: ron_tom on 28 Jun 2010 15:58
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:17:31 +0100, Pete
<available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote:

>On 2010-06-28 02:24:22 +0100, Robert Coe said:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:01:08 +0200, Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com>
>> wrote:
>> : Spent two evenings in the polder on my bicycle (you're not allowed to
>> : stop a car wherever you want) this week, and this is the result:
>> :
>> : http://www.arumes.com/temp/polder/
>>
>> Robert,
>>
>> Like everyone else, I do like the pictures. But just in case your objective
>> was to tease out a bit more substantive criticism than the saccharine attaboys
>> the others have been laying on you ...
>
>In that case, I will present some different opinions...
>
>> 1. This picture is nicely done, but more than a little dull. I think it would
>> have helped a lot to make the windmill the focus of attention, which I guess
>> would have required a vantage point down near the bend of the canal, where the
>> windmill is. I also would have preferred the grass in the foreground to be
>> less OOF, but recognize that it might have been technically infeasible or even
>> a deliberate stylistic choice.
>
>Not dull at all. It's refreshingly different from the "classical"
>approach (which is boring). The OOF grass in the foreground is a little
>uncomfortable and would become overpowering in a large image/print.

I don't often agree with the pretend-photographer trolls in this group, but
Robert Coe is right, he's even being kind.

>
>> 2. Another nice shot, but a tractor is a tractor, and this one doesn't have
>> much context. I'd like to see enough of the field to see what the tractor has
>> been doing (or is about to do).
>
>The tractor and trailer are both old and tired. The tractor has a blank
>stare on its "face". Showing more context would only detract from the
>idea that the tractor is resting and not happy about the prospect of
>doing more work.

Looks like something a city-child might snap off on his first visit to a
farm. This could be why so many of you that live in the basements of your
mommy's houses in city suburbs would be impressed with something like this.

>
>> 3. This one is compositionally excellent, but something seems amiss in the
>> perspective of the house, probably due to wide-angle effect. I'm tempted to
>> suggest a half degree of clockwise rotation, but that would probably throw off
>> the reflection of the tree behind the bridge. Maybe you can't have it both
>> ways.
>
>The house does have a slight CCW angle and I feel its reflection is too
>near the bottom of the frame. Other than those minor niggles, superb.

The image is actually rotated CCW 0.08� but that's not what's causing the
house edge angle, that's due to bad barrel distortion of the lens. I find
nothing redeeming in this image. Just another house near a channel of
water. Ho-hum at best.

>
>> 4. I can see leaving the background OOF, but I can't see doing it to the
>> white sheep. The brown sheep just aren't dominant enough, nor positioned well
>> enough, to allow them to function as the sole focus of the picture.
>
>Agreed. The OOF blur is too much: again, this prevents making a large
>image/print. Despite that, I do actually like the picture.

Ooops, the 5 year-old is still figuring out how to work within the shallow
DOF of those DSLR optics and learning how to compose images. Ah well, at
least it's trying to learn.

>
>> 5. This is a real winner. I might have tried to brighten the bottom or
>> cropped it a little, but that's just a nit. The colors work very well, and the
>> aura is more that of a 17th-century Japanese house than of a Dutch greenhouse.
>> Worth hanging on the wall. (And a good desktop wallpaper. Too bad you didn't
>> have it in time.)
>
>I feel this picture does not belong in the set: it's the only one with
>no green in it and it's the one I like the least.

A lucky shot. This is where the stopped-clock that created this group of
photos was right this one time of the day. Would that the plant-shelving in
the lower-left that reveals the structure's purpose and scale was not
there, it could have been a powerful image by removing the sense of scale
and familiarity. It was an interesting image until I spotted that shadow,
then it lost all interest. It could still be saved by cloning out that bit
of the image. That's not quite legal, in my book, but doing so would make
it printable for display in one's home at least.

>
>> 6. Again the greenhouse is a strong element, but I don't think the rest of
>> the picture lives up to it. The green is too relentless and is borderline dark
>> and muddy. I think I would have shown more of the greenhouse and less of the
>> orchard. But that's just me, and the picture is reasonably effective as
>> displayed.
>
>A superb picture. The variety of greens and their texture is most
>realistic for an early morning/late afternoon scene. Darned good sky
>also.

Oh look! That city-child took another snapshot on his first outing to the
countryside, isn't that cute! (The child's attempts is cute that is, not
the image it took.)

>
>
>Overall, a most enjoyable set of images. Of particular technical merit:
>colour balance, saturation, light and tone. None of the images has a
>"digital" or Velvia look, which makes a welcome change.

Except for one that was an almost hit, the rest is just typical
snapshooter's dreck.

From: Pete on 28 Jun 2010 16:20
On 2010-06-28 18:18:19 +0100, Robert Spanjaard said:

> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:17:31 +0100, Pete wrote:
>
>> Overall, a most enjoyable set of images. Of particular technical merit:
>> colour balance, saturation, light and tone. None of the images has a
>> "digital" or Velvia look, which makes a welcome change.
>
> Thanks. I've used the same RAW-converter (UFRaw) for about five years
> now, and I think it's starting to pay off. It helps a lot when you feel
> "at home" with your software. Using a different dark room every time
> probably wouldn't help in the film days. :-)

That's why I stick with my software (only one year experience with
digital). Your images are far better than I could do if I had been
there. I forgot to say, thanks very much for sharing.

--
Pete

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Who will bail on DSLRs first, Sony or Olympus?
Next: best way to market pics ...