Moderator: Beowulf
These are all pretty solid. I like how you presented the swords, but those museum photos are all a good argument in favor of using a circular polarizing filter.Death wrote:IMG_0690
IMG_0747
NY A-33
NY A-78
NY A-80
NY A-88
NY A-89
NY A-95
NY A-96
NY A-108
NY A-131
NY A-136
NY A-147
NY A-150
NY A-162
NY A-163
NY A-181
The open air on the right doesn't help the photo any. I have an idea of how this might have been done better with the same general idea, but as it is this isn't a very strong photo.IMG_0627
Foreground-background separation is terrible, so the photo doesn't work. The part of the statue in focus is camouflaged so well with the out-of-focus parts that there's nothing to look at.NY A-77
Custom/fine rotation -> straighten that shit up. There's no excuse for sloppy presentation.NY A-97
The windows over the statue as they are don't work here. The glare, the crookedness, and the blue color of the light are all reasons for this. However, they could work well as compositional elements if problems like that were corrected for.NY A-109
lolNY A-126
The reflection's looking pretty good. Too bad about the top 1/3, though - the seal's head blends into the rock and the overexposure.NY A-192
1. So, what do you have to say about my filtering abilities now, eh? (Out of hundreds! Over a thousand!).Simplicius wrote:These are all pretty solid. I like how you presented the swords, but those museum photos are all a good argument in favor of using a circular polarizing filter.Death wrote:IMG_0690
IMG_0747
NY A-33
NY A-78
NY A-80
NY A-88
NY A-89
NY A-95
NY A-96
NY A-108
NY A-131
NY A-136
NY A-147
NY A-150
NY A-162
NY A-163
NY A-181
.)What open air? You mean the stone?The open air on the right doesn't help the photo any. I have an idea of how this might have been done better with the same general idea, but as it is this isn't a very strong photo.IMG_0627
?Foreground-background separation is terrible, so the photo doesn't work. .NY A-77
Ack, don't see how I missed that. (I took a LOT of crooked photos this trip due to less than ideal shooting circumstances (Out of the window of a moving car/train for example).Custom/fine rotation -> straighten that shit up. There's no excuse for sloppy presentation.NY A-97
I have another "warmer" version of this shot, but I like this one, only miss that I see is that I should have pushed the underexposure down by another half stop.The windows over the statue as they are don't work here. The glare, the crookedness, and the blue color of the light are all reasons for this. However, they could work well as compositional elements if problems like that were corrected for.NY A-109
I thought SDN would appreciate thatlolNY A-126
. (I have a lot more "comedy picks", but most are artistically speaking, crap).
True. I saw the light issues, but I just had to play with that reflection (I have plenty of more generic shots of just the head in profile in the air, or just the upper part of the seal, etc'. It's on the facebook album if you want).The reflection's looking pretty good. Too bad about the top 1/3, though - the seal's head blends into the rock and the overexposure.NY A-192
It does suck that CPLs get rather expensive at that size (lucky me that all my Takumars are only 49mm!), but it's one of those necessary investments, like a solid tripod. You should have a CPL on your shopping list anyway for all that sky-shooting you do.Death wrote:2. Yeah, the amount of pictures I lost to an overexposed sky or mirror reflections on this trip... Ack. I need a filter (Curse the stupidly large size of my new 17-55 lens/77mm.
I mean all the space that isn't stone on the left side - daylight, greenery, tour boat, etc.What open air? You mean the stone?
Yeah, I was rather dissapointed by that, I took several shots at it, but didn't have any ideas. I got a decent shot of the eagle statue and in Arlington (In DC) at least.
In other words, when you are making a photograph of a 3-D space (as opposed to a 'flat' photo like the detail of a side of a building) there needs to be some visual distinction that preserves the sense of depth in the scene. It could be perspective, it could be shallow depth of field, it could be composition - but there has to be something. When your foreground (the fist) blends completely into the background, there is no longer a foreground. Since the whole point of the photo is that only the fist is in focus, and that fist is no longer discernible, you are left with a photo of an out-of-focus background, which makes for a bad photo.?I wrote:Foreground-background separation is terrible, so the photo doesn't work. . .
Well, the placement of the statue in the photo and the mellow museum lighting + the black background creates a certain feeling, which the windows then ruin by being crooked and asymmetrically placed in the frame because of perspective, being far brighter than the rest of the lighting, and being out-of-color-balance. They look anomalous in what is otherwise a controlled photograph. They could be made to belong if control of the shot was extended to include them, but right now they look like an undesirable but unavoidable inclusion. Since the essence of photography is paring all the unnecessary elements out of the frame, the photo on the whole is weakened.I have another "warmer" version of this shot, but I like this one, only miss that I see is that I should have pushed the underexposure down by another half stop.
Yeah, it'd be convenient too, unlike a ND filter.Simplicius wrote:It does suck that CPLs get rather expensive at that size (lucky me that all my Takumars are only 49mm!), but it's one of those necessary investments, like a solid tripod. You should have a CPL on your shopping list anyway for all that sky-shooting you do.Death wrote:2. Yeah, the amount of pictures I lost to an overexposed sky or mirror reflections on this trip... Ack. I need a filter (Curse the stupidly large size of my new 17-55 lens/77mm.
Yeah.. I tried that, couldn't get it to work! (At least I got plenty of good shots on Ellis Island and the statue of liberty. Pity about the 2 hours it took to get back from the islandI mean all the space that isn't stone on the left side - daylight, greenery, tour boat, etc.What open air? You mean the stone?
Yeah, I was rather dissapointed by that, I took several shots at it, but didn't have any ideas. I got a decent shot of the eagle statue and in Arlington (In DC) at least.
).
So, not straight and composed enough, in layman's talk?Well, the placement of the statue in the photo and the mellow museum lighting + the black background creates a certain feeling, which the windows then ruin by being crooked and asymmetrically placed in the frame because of perspective, being far brighter than the rest of the lighting, and being out-of-color-balance. They look anomalous in what is otherwise a controlled photograph. They could be made to belong if control of the shot was extended to include them, but right now they look like an undesirable but unavoidable inclusion. Since the essence of photography is paring all the unnecessary elements out of the frame, the photo on the whole is weakened.I have another "warmer" version of this shot, but I like this one, only miss that I see is that I should have pushed the underexposure down by another half stop.