
Blue bubbles

Corot, Jumièges Abbey - by Canon, after Daguerre. A scanner turns a transparency of a panting into a representation of a primitive photograph.

Marine sponge.
Moderator: Beowulf
The trees act as a filter, I think. There's nice light to be had in forests, if you can work with the bright patches.Death wrote:I'm enraptured by the light, it just came out so soft and golden (it was midday light through trees, so no idea why it wasn't harsh)
I didn't catch this earlier. The couple is meant to be the subject, with the tanks as their subject. I was stopped way down, where I could have decreased DoF a little if I had been paying attention and maybe improved that part of it.phongn wrote:EDIT: Some thoughts about the first picture - I can't quite tell what the subject is. Is it the couple or is it the storage tanks across the river? The couple's dark clothing is also in-line with the much brighter buildings - so they seem to blend in.
The backlit building and greenery remind me of Eliot Porter's The wharf, Great Spruce Head Island, 1965, at least as printed. It seems a very delicate grade of light, light without quite being bright.aerius wrote:lifeguard shack
I think I have to agree here - for a little while the fence was distracting me and I couldn't figure out why for the life of me - then I recognized the part where it looked like the chain-link fence was growing into her head.Simplicius wrote:I do like that picture, too. Only thing that bugs me is the dark mass of chain-link coming out of her head. The placement is unfortunately distracting; the rest of the fence is fine.
Subject isolation would've helped, I think, but then it runs the risk of de-emphasizing the tanks a bit too much. It still wasn't quite clear if the subjects were looking across the bay.I didn't catch this earlier. The couple is meant to be the subject, with the tanks as their subject. I was stopped way down, where I could have decreased DoF a little if I had been paying attention and maybe improved that part of it.phongn wrote:EDIT: Some thoughts about the first picture - I can't quite tell what the subject is. Is it the couple or is it the storage tanks across the river? The couple's dark clothing is also in-line with the much brighter buildings - so they seem to blend in.
The hilarious part is that I just found some unscanned film buried at the bottom of my photo bin and it turns out that I made almost the exact same shot in B&W. I'll have to compare the two (desaturated 135 KR 64 versus 120 TMY-2 400) and see what I liked best.I like your Bean photo. It's probably one of those items that has been photographed nigh to death, but your shot uses it well - it's a picture of the city, not a 'lol curved mirror' gimmick or a picture of the sculpture itself.
The irony is that the technique is mind-bogglingly simple and takes almost zero effort or indeed thought, while the downside is that what can be presented and how are quite limited. Glad you liked it, though!The Grim Squeaker wrote:The third picture is very professional - clean, colour and background controlled, and I like the light spectrum. You should use it as an example of product photography if you have a portfolio.
How did you take this photo? Are those bubbles on the inside of a glass?Simplicius wrote:Blue bubbles
It was definitely interesting lighting that day, kind of a thin overcast with chunkier clumps of clouds in the overcast, it was just thick enough that the sun could shine through it while preventing any harsh shadows. The lighting changed fast and this was the best picture out of the half dozen or so I took.Simplicius wrote:The backlit building and greenery remind me of Eliot Porter's The wharf, Great Spruce Head Island, 1965, at least as printed. It seems a very delicate grade of light, light without quite being bright.
Yep. Ginger ale + macro bellows + tungsten film.aerius wrote:How did you take this photo? Are those bubbles on the inside of a glass?
That is an improvement. Weird, usually I crop like crazy, thanks for pointing that improvement out to meSimplicius wrote:Guy and cat: desperately needs a crop. There's a really strong line curving through the cat that connects the two faces, but the top of the guy's head is a huge flat mass that sits on top of the photo and frigs it all up. Crop this picture.
Low light. I tried playing with the angles, but couldn't zoom due to the 1/30s limitation.Statues: I would have preferred a smaller aperture for this one. You've made only one statue the subject of the photo with no clear reason why, and it's not even the one whose face we can see.
It's cuteAlso, photos of art not art themselves, etc.
Eh, this was the only one worth a damn and it captured the glowing windows reasonably well. The tower was very high and narrow, and I couldn't climb up on the rooftop for a better angle of the glowing orange tower windows
YMCA: The angle and perspective don't work. It looks like you were just trying to fit as much tower in the frame as possible, instead of composing the image for best effect.
Honestly, I probably would not have taken it. I know that's not helpful to you at all, but assuming that this kind of view is typical of what's available, I don't think I'd bother trying.The Grim Squeaker wrote:What would you have done?
Is that a bird or a plane in the sky? It anchors the picture well; for me it gives a bit of a lonely feel.
Get closer if possible so you can use a shorter zoom for less shake, then with practice you can easily handhold down to 1/8 of a second especially with image stabilization. If you don't believe me this is a 1/6 second handhold at a 80mm equivalent, no shake, no blur, all good.The Grim Squeaker wrote:Low light. I tried playing with the angles, but couldn't zoom due to the 1/30s limitation.Statues: I would have preferred a smaller aperture for this one. You've made only one statue the subject of the photo with no clear reason why, and it's not even the one whose face we can see.
A C-130 which had been doing fly-bys all afternoon, probably as part of an exercise. It was too far away for a clear shot.phongn wrote:Is that a bird or a plane in the sky? It anchors the picture well; for me it gives a bit of a lonely feel.