The Pinhole II gallery is up!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Pete on 21 Jul 2010 02:38 On 2010-07-21 00:29:36 +0100, tony cooper said: > A bit off the subject for the Shoot-In, but one of the guest judges (a > magazine photo editor in real life) for a recent competition night > lectured sensibly on "tangents". > > A "tangent", as he described it, is a bit of the central point of > interest of a photo that touches the edge of the frame. He advises to > avoid this because it stops the eye from moving all around the major > subject. > > This came to mind looking at Bowser's pigeons: > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/126699235 > > The tail feathers at the left are exactly what this judge was > commenting on. He would have Bowser crop just outside that tangent > point. > > When he first brought this up, I was skeptical. Then, I started > noticing photographs where this exists and found that I *am* stopped > at this point. I wouldn't notice the effect if there was a slivver of > space twixt subject and edge. > > Naturally, this doesn't pertain to ordinary background or a > deliberately offset image. > > Comments? The concept was described to me as subject "breathing space". We could say that a "tangent" occurs when the "breathing space" becomes zero or negative. For many subjects, stress increases as "breathing space" approaches zero from either direction. The stress results from a few factors, but the eye movement being restricted by the frame is a very good explanation. The media, especially television, portrays images with negative "breathing space" so frequently that many of us have stopped noticing it. -- Pete
From: Doug McDonald on 21 Jul 2010 10:43 >> Good landscape shot. You show nice perspective by keeping both the foreground and background >> sharp. To add a little punch if you have PhotoShop you might want to try the technique here, to >> remove the haze: >> >> http://www.jakeludington.com/photography/20060921_fixing_haze_in_digital_photos.html >> That's for more than just haze. Its a virtual panacea. The two tools that are most needed for landscape shots are that and careful use of "highlight/shadow". I do, for the former, however suggest not radii of 70 or so, but more usually 300-400. As small as 70 can produce obvious artifacts. Doug McDonald
From: Tim Conway on 21 Jul 2010 11:29 "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in message news:i270r2$mop$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu... > > >>> Good landscape shot. You show nice perspective by keeping both the >>> foreground and background >>> sharp. To add a little punch if you have PhotoShop you might want to try >>> the technique here, to >>> remove the haze: >>> >>> http://www.jakeludington.com/photography/20060921_fixing_haze_in_digital_photos.html >>> > > > That's for more than just haze. Its a virtual panacea. The two tools that > are most needed for landscape shots are that and careful use of > "highlight/shadow". > > I do, for the former, however suggest not radii of 70 or so, but more > usually 300-400. > As small as 70 can produce obvious artifacts. Are you sure you mean radius? I just tried to enter 300 in Photoshop CS and it won't let me enter more than a 250 radius. I did do that, and it really looks good. (30, 250, 0) Thanks.
From: Peter on 21 Jul 2010 12:25 "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:i273q3$365$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in message > news:i270r2$mop$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu... >> >> >>>> Good landscape shot. You show nice perspective by keeping both the >>>> foreground and background >>>> sharp. To add a little punch if you have PhotoShop you might want to >>>> try the technique here, to >>>> remove the haze: >>>> >>>> http://www.jakeludington.com/photography/20060921_fixing_haze_in_digital_photos.html >>>> >> >> >> That's for more than just haze. Its a virtual panacea. The two tools that >> are most needed for landscape shots are that and careful use of >> "highlight/shadow". >> >> I do, for the former, however suggest not radii of 70 or so, but more >> usually 300-400. >> As small as 70 can produce obvious artifacts. > > Are you sure you mean radius? I just tried to enter 300 in Photoshop CS > and it won't let me enter more than a 250 radius. I did do that, and it > really looks good. (30, 250, 0) > Thanks. > You have to play with the different tools and see which one pleases you. As you know in PS there are many ways of achieving the same effect. -- Peter
From: Pete on 21 Jul 2010 16:49
On 2010-07-21 14:02:49 +0100, HocusPocus said: > When television arrived it was referred to as the 'close up' medium. > Screens were smaller than the cinema (obviously) where large vistas were > common and desirable. The (wrong) thinking for television was that > everything had to be right in there, cropping the forehead and chin, the > ECU. What we noticed was that the aspect ratio of cinema films meant either > side of the image was cut off on television (it was squeezed for the credit > sequence) and an 'innovation' was the ability to pan the image to one side > or the other so vital actions weren't happening off screen. When the > technology enabling the image to be letterboxed came along, all was well > again. Those who said television was a close up medium said nothing and > directors were calling for 'headroom' - don't chop off the tops of their > heads - and 'leading space' - don't have a face up against the frame in the > direction they are looking. Funny how it still goes round and round. Very well stated, thank you. -- Pete |