Dutch polder

Robert Spanjaard 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/

I really like the backlit greenhouse shot (number 5)
The rest are a bit "nice view, take a photo" for
my liking.

I like 4 least, which is "look at my bokeh".

BugBear

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...

[ . . . ]

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.

I don't think it's "wide-angle effect" (I don't see any of that). The house
does seem to be tilted very, very slightly counterclockwise in the photo,
but I suspect it really is tilted that way -- look at the reflection of its
verticals in the water and they do not seem quite parallel to their
originals in the house. Since the water itself must be level this implies a
slight tilt to the house.

It's a really lovely scene. The small boats, water and bridge make the
picture. Looks like the sort of quiet, peaceful place one would enjoy
spending a good deal of time, and having the photo is the next best thing.

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:53:10 -0400, Mort wrote:

Robert Spanjaard 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/

Nice polder pictures. Which polder was it?

Heerhugowaard, north-east of Alkmaar.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

Robert Spanjaard wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:53:10 -0400, Mort wrote:

Nice polder pictures. Which polder was it?

... north-east of Alkmaar.

That's from a Terry Pratchet book, surely?

BugBear

p.s. answering "Mort" - even better!

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:00:14 +0100, bugbear wrote:

Robert Spanjaard wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:53:10 -0400, Mort wrote:

Nice polder pictures. Which polder was it?

... north-east of Alkmaar.

That's from a Terry Pratchet book, surely?

Discworld is still on my to-do list, so I don't have a clue.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

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

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

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:17:31 +0100, Pete
wrote:

On 2010-06-28 02:24:22 +0100, Robert Coe said:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:01:08 +0200, Robert Spanjaard
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.

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