If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] There is no god after all...
... because Al is back with another dose of ripping images to shreds! First off, the images in question can be found at http://www.pbase.com/shootin/backlit. Anyone reading this may participate, don't be shy, but please check out the Rulz link therein to help with your submissions. This round produced a nice set of good images (credit to Alan for the inspirational mandate), with some interesting emphasis on blues and yellows. Next time around we have to aim for greens and magentas, right? For anyone that I've missed in the past several weeks who's new here, welcome aboard! Please note that, like many posters, I have more of a life on Usenet than in the physical world, so taking any of these comments with any seriousness whatsoever simply means *you* need to get out more, too ;-) So without further hedging, Skip Middleton - Starting off with an archive, oh, bad show! ;-) Skip tries to give additional meaning to the idea of "backlight" with this one, but it's a good placeholder for the gallery, and undoubtedly drove up the hits this time ;-). He's got an excellent model for this kind of approach, and a good pose against the lovely textures of the water - very nicely done. But there's a few little things that detract, much as I hate to say it. I've heard time and again about horizon lines and portrait subjects, and I'm not sure how I feel about this one. It doesn't affect me as much as I'm told it should, but keeping it from crossing the subject would still be better. I don't mind the sparkles, and I can understand how Skip felt this one was perfect for the mandate, but I wouldn't mind comparing against one without them to see how much it improved it. The foreground stuff at the bottom doesn't add anything and seems easy to avoid. But what's noticeable to me (in my many years of studying the female form) is that the lens used and the height of the camera caused some foreshortening of the model, taking her legs out of proportion from the rest of her, though it probably helped with the background effect. Small things: The smudge across her head is noticeable - processing artifact or lens flare? And am I seeing just enough light to define her eyes, or is it my imagination? Tom Hudson - Tom took an approach I've tried a few times myself, but did a much better job of it. The placement of the subject with the clouds is exceptionally well done, and the backlight gave a great glow to the lamp glass and defined the clouds starkly. Very simple and well-balanced. I like the color register too. High marks for a second entry, you crummy little... ;-) Guy Scharf - Welcome aboard, Guy! The idea of backlighting is much more subtle in this one, providing a sharp increase in the color brightness of the subject without the artifacts that one would normally associate with backlight. It does a good job of enhancing the tree, but I find no really strong subject to lock onto, and the complication causes me to search for a center of attention. The mosses get some emphasis from the light as well, but don't quite hold the interest. I love the mood and the environment, but keep looking for the subject. Martin Djernaes - Archive! Everybody hiss at Martin. But it fits the mandate well, and even if clichéish, is still a compelling image. Martin framed it well and found a good exposure level, catching the sunrays at a nice angle for the framing. Very dramatic color, a good display print. Another one for high marks. Rich Pos - Hmmmm. Just a bit too direct and simple for me, though it was handled well for all that. I like how the image drops into darkness above the lamp, and even loses detail down under the shade - emphasizes the decorative and not functional purpose. The background texture helps fill it in, too. Nice one to show off the handiwork, but doesn't stand alone strongly enough. Brian Fane - Abstract, artsy, and mysterious, with some nice gradients in there. I'm put in mind of a sundial type of thing and started looking for something that fit this idea, which it doesn't quite have. A shot that is easy to glance at to get the general idea/mood/whatever, but can draw the eye looking for more detail too, which is why the recessed lighting unit detracts a bit - it grounds it in modern times and reveals it as only faux- ancient, unfortunately. Otherwise a nice accent piece. Doug Payne - Cropped tighter to remove any evidence of the pedestal, this shot would be very deceptive, since it's an excellent sculpture of a youth and in these lighting conditions it becomes impossible to tell that it *is* a sculpture. The lighting becomes very symbolic in this position, helped by the upward shooting angle - good approach. I like the blues in the sky but wish they'd carried higher into the frame, since the washout at the top is too strong in my book. But balancing this is the detail that creeps in on the sculpture itself, giving three-dimensionality and something more to focus on, easy to lose in such conditions. A tad over-sharpened, maybe. Ken Nadvornick - Ken, I keep wanting to spell your name "Navordnick"; change it for me, will you? ;-) I have to disagree with this one meeting the mandate, since I get a much more distinct impression of the light being from all directions, but I'll concede that there's still the idea of the sun at upper left. I like how the details just barely remain, very delicate, and imagine how badly "Autolevels" would have screwed up this image ;-). While it has depth, which is good, it only seems to have two levels with a distinct separation between them, interesting. The deeper fog at the upper reaches of the trees gives the impression of the fog lifting with the sun, nice! Another good accent and mood piece. Al Denelsbeck - And just what's wrong with bugs?!?! I had several shots in contention for this mandate, settled on this one for the sunbeams at the top, and because the depth-of-field worked fairly well. I'm frustrated that the wires in the background contact the subject, not quite subtle enough. I was all over the place trying to get the mantis, lighting angle, and background noise in complementary positions. But okay, I'll try to get out of my rut... ;-) Quercus - No questions on how well this one fits the mandate; even has the distinct rimlighting in several areas. Nice color, and I like the three different layers of leaves, providing that depth I like to see. The open space to the right seems a little off-balanced, and I would have liked to have seen a stronger focal point. The airborne dust attracts too much attention too (but whatcha gonna do?) and can be mistaken for a bad print, unfortunately. Steely Dan - Okay, sometimes the oddest things strike me about an image, but I'm slightly frustrated that the big splash seems to have no particular cause (likely because it has passed over and obscured the rock). The framing and timing is excellent, and while I find the image a tad too dark, I know that changing the exposure would start reducing detail in the sky - I'm primarily looking at the water, so I'm not sure how bad this would be. Seems a tad soft, and I think I would have liked to have seen more sparkle from the splashes - don't ask me how to accomplish this. But a neat moment, especially with the curve of the splash, something you might never notice while it's happening. The print/scan could use a little cleanup. Alan Browne - Hmmmmm. Not being a beer drinker, I might lose some of the interest in this image, but it's definitely too direct. Even as advertising, the loss of detail from the front side works against it - you can tell it's there, but it's hard to see. The two different colors through the bottle is also very curious, and the printed code grabs too much attention. The condensation works great, though, and is exactly how it should be - trying to get the glass detail out might well have over- emphasized the dew. Very tricky subject - whoever said commercial work was easy? (Okay, *I* did for one, a long time ago when I was naïve...) Vic Mason - Ah, now I know that Vic works for the Witness Protection Program! ;-) The part of this image that keeps stopping me is the odd angle of the model's head, which has produced a profile that seems disproportionate. The stray hairs are accentuated in this kind of lighting too, providing almost the only detail to lock onto. The interesting part is that the blouse has some evidence of fill lighting, but the face does not, giving almost total anonymity. Fits the mandate, but has no real message of its own. Steve McCartney - A nice little study in B&W, Steve gives us a peek out the window on a dreary day, or at least conditions that seem to evoke that mood. The knicknacks don't quite balance well, but come close, and give several things to focus on. They also have enough front-lighting to reveal their textures, nice. I keep catching the pattern of lights in the glass, which I *think* is reflected but not entirely sure - the different bokeh seems to indicate it, but in any event, it draws too much attention. Another thing I find curious - most of the subjects are candleholders of some sort, sans any of the candles, which are light-sources. Slight irony there ;-) Graham Fountain - Like Guy's, Graham's shot uses the backlighting to enhance the colors of a translucent subject. The problem is, the subject is very direct and centered, in conditions that seem to beg a more artistic approach. Additionally, the background effect is harsh, with too much detail creeping through and not complementary to the subject. I like how the detail of the tiny flowers came out, but overall, I think it needs a stronger composition. Jim Kramer - Hmmmm. Centered subject, but in this case not necessarily bad, and I'm not sure why. Part of it is the framing with the dark portions of the background and the anchoring points of the visible web strands. Part of it is the lighting being off-center too, I think. Excellent detail on the spider silhouette and web and a pretty good position for the spider - not sure how I feel about the condition of the web. The mixed bokeh is interesting, and only mildly distracting given the nature of the photo. But stay out of my subject territory! Some of you should take note of the detail and the subsequent file size... Bob Hickey - Hmmmm, I get the impression Bob was a little stumped for a submission this time, this isn't his usual level of work. Better contrast than before, nice mix of tones with only minimal blowout, but the subject is rocky. I'm trying to determine what he's actually up to, though the impression I get from the clothes and pose is a pizza delivery, which is entirely wrong. The setting looks like a Hickey, but the model is awkward and cut off, hard to determine why he's there. But it's not a bug... ;-) Bowser - There's a lot of elements I like in this one, but for some unknown reason I don't feel too strongly about this image either way. I like the symmetry of the rails, bench, and poles; I like the placement of the subject and the subtle color contrast; I like the ambiguous pose of the model - drowsing? Concentrating? Reading? I like the depth from the water; I even like the very subtle indication of the locale (look at the base of the bench). But all together, it doesn't grab me. Maybe because it's too tight for the scene, or because the water seems far too distant to match the idea of fishing. Can't pin it down, which is frustrating. Christian Gatien - You can't get too much stronger an idea for the mandate than this one, but what I really like about it is the way the barn detail comes up very vividly in a situation that should be difficult as hell to meter within. The sunrays spread out into the picture perfectly, great framing, and the foreground detail is balanced but undistracting. The shadow builds to that prominent silo, a great anchor, but the rest of the details give an excellent setting and very good depth. Nicely done! Simon Lee - Everybody hiss for an archive! ;-). Again, a bit direct, and a little complicated for a simple subject. Works good in the contrast department. The clouds are well-placed and almost give a good impression of faux-foliage, which might have been stronger had the tree been completely missing its own. The uneven coloring and splotches in the sky take away a little bit too. Needs a little bit more refinement to be strong. Bruce Murphy - This seems to be the mandate for direct approaches. Bruce's shot is almost entirely gradients, with a good range among them, and uses the simple geometry of the glass in a strong way. Might even make me buy Stolichnaya ;-). I'm bothered by the banding of the background, very noticeable in this case, but like how the background lighting matches one side of the subject, a subtle but worthwhile touch. If you have to do a basic subject, this is a pretty good approach for it. Joseph Kewfi - Joseph, we really gotta get you out taking new pics ;-). This picture makes me a bit uncomfortable, largely in that it seems very cold and forbidding to me, but I'll admit that this might be a personal bias - too much time in northern climes, and the low sun angle hints at winter. Not helped by the rocks. What's nice about it is the anchor point of the separate sailboat on the left, distinct from the others clustered together at the docks, and the way the lines all lead strongly to the right - notice the way the masts reduce in height in that direction too. Shot this way, I got the initial impression that the path to open sea was to the right, and felt that an angle exploiting that would have been better. But now I'm pretty sure it's entirely in the opposite direction. Too bad, because using that method of leading the viewer off to sea should have worked well. Bret Douglas - This late and an archive? With the Excrutiatingly Uncontestable 20D? I am affronted ;-). Fits the mandate very well, but ultimately hurt a bit by the lack of sharpness, especially with the strange rendering of the branch. What I like is that the bird is still recognizable by body and bill shape, is posed well among the other details, and has that telltale blur indicating a call. It might seem a bit strange that both bills aren't showing movement, though this is normal of course. I would have liked to have seen the light extend past the upper bill, framing that better. Neat overall approach though. R. Schenck - A curious, almost mystical shot. I like the effect and the subject, but there's a few too many things hurting it. Most noticeable is the lens ghost that overlaps the fire image onto the main subject, taking away a lot of the strength. But additionally, there's the overall softness of the image, the background clutter, and the distinct treetrunk lined up perfectly with the fire and the subject. What's interesting is that it's hard to tell if the subject is facing directly away or directly towards the viewer, which affects the mood/idea signifcantly. Nice idea, but needs refinement. And that concludes our broadcast day. Buy Wonder Bread. - Al. -- To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
2Th 2:8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 2Th 2:9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 2Th 2:10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 2Th 2:11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2Th 2:12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Repent! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Al Denelsbeck wrote: Martin Djernaes - Archive! Everybody hiss at Martin. But it fits the mandate well, and even if clichéish, is still a compelling image. Martin framed it well and found a good exposure level, catching the sunrays at a nice angle for the framing. Very dramatic color, a good display print. Another one for high marks. Al, thanks for your kind words. Yes it was archived, but I was reviewing the shots when the mandate came out .. so at the time it was the newest I had ;-) Martin |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... 2Th 2:8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 2Th 2:9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 2Th 2:10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 2Th 2:11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2Th 2:12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Repent! So, who is being lied to? God acting like Satan? Now I'm really confused; it's a good thing the Bible is so clear. It has certainly solved much of the world's problems; or is that caused? Thanks, Cody, I was feeling far too philosophical this evening and you fixed that. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Al Denelsbeck wrote in message .3.44...
snipped whilst chuckling Steve McCartney - A nice little study in B&W, Steve gives us a peek out the window on a dreary day, or at least conditions that seem to evoke that mood. The knicknacks don't quite balance well, but come close, and give several things to focus on. Too much, though, IMO. And some elements detract from others. I should have taken more time and set the shot up a little. They also have enough front-lighting to reveal their textures, nice. I keep catching the pattern of lights in the glass, which I *think* is reflected but not entirely sure - the different bokeh seems to indicate it, but in any event, it draws too much attention. It's not reflected lights, but there's a fence in the background basically made of bamboo - allowing a fair bit of light through and the different bokeh from the dirt and damp on the glass. I was just trying to blur the background out - I guess a smaller aperture would have reduced this effect, though. I should have bracketed via aperture, not shutter! Another thing I find curious - most of the subjects are candleholders of some sort, sans any of the candles, which are light-sources. Slight irony there ;-) And totally intended, as anyone who read my description of the shot will know Thanks for the comments, Al. You're always very helpful. Cheers, Steve |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Al Denelsbeck wrote in message .3.44...
Please note that, like many posters, I have more of a life on Usenet than in the physical world, so taking any of these comments with any seriousness whatsoever simply means *you* need to get out more, too ;-) Says the guy who half a week getting around to commenting! Cheers, Steve |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"jimkramer" writes: So, who is being lied to? God acting like Satan? Now I'm really confused; No, Stan, there wasa typo... -- http://www.petezilla.co.uk |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message . 3.44... ... because Al is back with another dose of ripping images to shreds! Jim Kramer - Hmmmm. Centered subject, but in this case not necessarily bad, and I'm not sure why. Part of it is the framing with the dark portions of the background and the anchoring points of the visible web strands. Part of it is the lighting being off-center too, I think. Excellent detail on the spider silhouette and web and a pretty good position for the spider - not sure how I feel about the condition of the web. The mixed bokeh is interesting, and only mildly distracting given the nature of the photo. But stay out of my subject territory! What no ripping comments on the hideous bokeh. As always, thanks for the comments, but someone really needs to sit down with you and have a fatherly chat, you're getting too soft in your old age. This was a dificult mandate for me, took loads of images and nothing that really thrilled me, maybe I should have used film? Jim Kramer |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
. 3.44... ... because Al is back with another dose of ripping images to shreds! First off, the images in question can be found at http://www.pbase.com/shootin/backlit. Anyone reading this may participate, don't be shy, but please check out the Rulz link therein to help with your submissions. This round produced a nice set of good images (credit to Alan for the inspirational mandate), with some interesting emphasis on blues and yellows. Next time around we have to aim for greens and magentas, right? For anyone that I've missed in the past several weeks who's new here, welcome aboard! Please note that, like many posters, I have more of a life on Usenet than in the physical world, so taking any of these comments with any seriousness whatsoever simply means *you* need to get out more, too ;-) So without further hedging, Skip Middleton - Starting off with an archive, oh, bad show! ;-) Skip tries to give additional meaning to the idea of "backlight" with this one, but it's a good placeholder for the gallery, and undoubtedly drove up the hits this time ;-). He's got an excellent model for this kind of approach, and a good pose against the lovely textures of the water - very nicely done. But there's a few little things that detract, much as I hate to say it. I've heard time and again about horizon lines and portrait subjects, and I'm not sure how I feel about this one. It doesn't affect me as much as I'm told it should, but keeping it from crossing the subject would still be better. I don't mind the sparkles, and I can understand how Skip felt this one was perfect for the mandate, but I wouldn't mind comparing against one without them to see how much it improved it. The foreground stuff at the bottom doesn't add anything and seems easy to avoid. But what's noticeable to me (in my many years of studying the female form) is that the lens used and the height of the camera caused some foreshortening of the model, taking her legs out of proportion from the rest of her, though it probably helped with the background effect. Small things: The smudge across her head is noticeable - processing artifact or lens flare? And am I seeing just enough light to define her eyes, or is it my imagination? - Al. -- To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net Lens flare, and, yes, it is your imagination. And she has rather short legs for her height... ;-) I'm less thrilled about the "sparkles" than I was when I put it up, I subsequently printed one without them for my portfolio... -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin Djernæs" wrote in message
... Al Denelsbeck wrote: Martin Djernaes - Archive! Everybody hiss at Martin. But it fits the mandate well, and even if clichéish, is still a compelling image. Martin framed it well and found a good exposure level, catching the sunrays at a nice angle for the framing. Very dramatic color, a good display print. Another one for high marks. Al, thanks for your kind words. Yes it was archived, but I was reviewing the shots when the mandate came out .. so at the time it was the newest I had ;-) Martin That's kinda where I was, I had just printed those images the night before the mandate came out. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[SI] Mandate XXXVIII - Backlit subject | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 47 | September 14th 04 02:41 AM |
[SI] Mandate XXXVIII - Backlit subject | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 10 | September 11th 04 06:15 PM |
[SI] WEB SITE FOR PHOTO CONTEST | street shooter | Film & Labs | 0 | November 9th 03 02:19 AM |