At 09:13 PM 5/26/2005, Marc Lawrence wrote:
> > http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/big.asp?photoID=925857
>
>It's an odd picture - I can fully understand Chuck's comment "too
>difficult to look at for more than a few seconds", but, then, even so, my
>eye keeps being drawn back to it. Of
>the three (sorry) I like most, this is one of them.
Yes . . . it is difficult to look at for long and that bothers me. The
strong shadows on the bright concrete conflict with the lines of the
rays. I should have used the 300mm with tripod for this and gotten in
tighter on the central circle . . . leaving only portions of the rays
(although that would lose establishing where it was done). Couldn't move
closer . . . there was a stairway between me and the wall and I was
precariously perched on another wall about 6 feet above the steps below
trying to shoot it with the 200mm. It would have also enabled better
focusing, less camera shake and a tighter aperture for greater depth of
field to slightly sharpen the outline of the reflective surface. In
retrospect, I allowed the pressure of time constraints (only 2 hours) to
cut too many corners on making this one. Unsure about the focusing or
camera shake on this one . . . might be off . . . but I had a devil of a
time trying to find sharp focus on the reflection and believe the mirrored
surface has aberrations that preclude getting anything very sharp.
> > http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/big.asp?photoID=925858
>
>This is much easier on the eye/brain than the above. If I took this shot,
>I would have got a lot closer to cut out some of the green background,
>lose the wall to highlight those
>converging lines more, and included more reflection. I would also say
>that, after I had done so, I wouldn't enjoy my resultant image anywhere
>near as much as I enjoy yours. So,
>yes, this is a "shortlist" one for me.
That's OK . . . I should have gotten closer . . . actually I was in very
close, noted my own reflection showed in it and moved back . . . too far .
. . and should have switched to a longer lens to get down to the circle
with perhaps the wall only on the left and bottom. This would also reduce
the huge expanse of washed out hazy sky which is a bit distracting. The
goal was getting the entrance sign . . . which has its lettering facing
outside the park . . . but the reflection of which reverses it so that it's
readable. There are a series of these panels of different shapes . . . and
went down the line to find one that had a view of the entrance. A couple
better ones for this (bigger areas of reflection) that I would have liked
to use had a tree completely blocking the sign.
> > http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/big.asp?photoID=925860
>
>I like this one because it's not just about the graphic quality of the
>image, but because it leads me to think about the bare feet dancing on the
>grass behind that wall. I've a thing for simple graphic images, but mine
>don't have the depth that leads the mind on like this one does for me. So,
>this is my excessive third choice (but not necessarily in this order, or
>I'd have been able to chop one).
Saw this, visualized the possibilities and grabbed it quickly before it
disappeared (someone retrieving the shoes or standing in the way on either
side of the wall. I have to submit a full-frame print (4x5 or 4x6). This
one was made with the 645 and the shoes are tack sharp. The expansive hot
spot of washed out sky is distracting to my eye in this and likely I won't
submit it even though it's apparently the most compelling (taking a
consensus of the responses). However, this one definitely goes into the
archives marked for future use when I can crop out about 2/3 of the sky,
take a little off the bottom to drop the shoes back down in the print, and
make a more radical aspect ratio of it . . . for a salon or gallery
presentation (mounted and matted; gallery is under glass with frame, salon
is less formal and omits framing).
Thanks to everyone who replied . . .
All the critical thoughts have been helpful. I'm a bit disappointed that
nothing in the entire batch is not without some flaw(s) . . . some are
worse than others. You should see the ones I cut (it's better that you
shouldn't). #56 . . . the overlook swallowing the gnarled tree roots of a
stump being washed downstream didn't get any nods from anyone. In
retrospect, like the reflection, this one needs a lens longer than 200mm .
. . much longer . . . likely about 400-500mm to get in very tight on the
intended subject and eliminate most of the rest of the scene as it is
distracting. Another one that could be better had I not let the time
limitation convince me to cut corners on getting down to what I had
visualized. Even so, it still might not have worked that well.
I've got to deliver the prints tomorrow and have spent the evening with
them laid out and periodically looking at them briefly . . . to see what
has initial visual impact. #63 . . . the white wildflowers #3 . . . is
definitely going in and it ran second to the shoes. Got the reprint on
glossy late tonight and it looks better than the original proof. It has
the wildness to it that fits. Still torn about the second one to put
in. I may see if the flowers/river reflection can be quickly printed to
5x7 glossy and crop it down to a 4x6 early tomorrow morning . . . to take a
good chunk of the shadow/concrete out. If that doesn't work I may throw
darts at the rest and take the one that doesn't get hit (the ones that do
would have a hole in them).
Thanks!
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|