Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: shutterpup on June 10, 2009, 09:26:50 pm
-
Dale's photo made me think of this one of mine. I saw this shot out the kitchen window one fall morning. It looked like a shaft of gold streaking through a tree just beginning to be lit. Any suggestions to make it better?
[attachment=14440:Lorraine...iPhoto_1.jpg]
-
Dale's photo made me think of this one of mine. I saw this shot out the kitchen window one fall morning. It looked like a shaft of gold streaking through a tree just beginning to be lit. Any suggestions to make it better?
It's funny how the peculiar ways computers work sometimes illustrates a point in an unpredictable way. For example, since this image is larger than my screen, when it was loading and filled the screen, my immediate reaction was "wow!", this is great. Then when the download was complete and it got sized to the screen, the impact fell away somewhat. So, it's still very good, but that initial "cropped by loading" perspective spoke loudly (to me at least) that some selective cropping would enhance this greatly. But I'm not going to try to be a party pooper, so crop or don't crop as you wish, and I'll wait and see what other folks have to say.
-
It's funny how the peculiar ways computers work sometimes illustrates a point in an unpredictable way. For example, since this image is larger than my screen, when it was loading and filled the screen, my immediate reaction was "wow!", this is great. Then when the download was complete and it got sized to the screen, the impact fell away somewhat. So, it's still very good, but that initial "cropped by loading" perspective spoke loudly (to me at least) that some selective cropping would enhance this greatly. But I'm not going to try to be a party pooper, so crop or don't crop as you wish, and I'll wait and see what other folks have to say.
What I'm really unsure about is the trunk coming up on the right side. Opinion please.
-
It's funny how the peculiar ways computers work sometimes illustrates a point in an unpredictable way. For example, since this image is larger than my screen, when it was loading and filled the screen, my immediate reaction was "wow!", this is great. Then when the download was complete and it got sized to the screen, the impact fell away somewhat. So, it's still very good, but that initial "cropped by loading" perspective spoke loudly (to me at least) that some selective cropping would enhance this greatly. But I'm not going to try to be a party pooper, so crop or don't crop as you wish, and I'll wait and see what other folks have to say.
Dale,
Russ just let me know on my other photo that I need to keep the size down. I think that goes along with what you're saying here. I have a 24 inch monitor so I don't notice it. I'm learning here.
-
Dale,
Russ just let me know on my other photo that I need to keep the size down. I think that goes along with what you're saying here. I have a 24 inch monitor so I don't notice it. I'm learning here.
Tell ya what - I sometimes post large if I think it needs to be to show certain detail, but when I do I make sure to save the JPEG at 72 DPI so as to minimize the size. In fact, all the images I post are saved at 72 DPI.
You said something about the trunk on the right side. I don't know what "coming up" means, so all I can say is yes, I would crop the photo, and cropping off of the right, mainly that trunk, would be a good test. BTW, I think those leaves look really good, with that lighting.
BTW #2, I resaved your photo, downloaded at ~1,280,000 bytes, and the resave size was 561,000 bytes, same size.
-
Tell ya what - I sometimes post large if I think it needs to be to show certain detail, but when I do I make sure to save the JPEG at 72 DPI so as to minimize the size. In fact, all the images I post are saved at 72 DPI.
You said something about the trunk on the right side. I don't know what "coming up" means, so all I can say is yes, I would crop the photo, and cropping off of the right, mainly that trunk, would be a good test. BTW, I think those leaves look really good, with that lighting.
BTW #2, I resaved your photo, downloaded at ~1,280,000 bytes, and the resave size was 561,000 bytes, same size.
Dale,
I am at a technical loss. You say you save your jpegs at 72 dpi. What program are you doing that with? The only post-processing I have available to me at this time is Aperture. I need to investigate this more thoroughly I think.
It is all about the light, isn't it?
-
Tell ya what - I sometimes post large if I think it needs to be to show certain detail, but when I do I make sure to save the JPEG at 72 DPI so as to minimize the size. In fact, all the images I post are saved at 72 DPI.
If you post an image that's x pixels by y, it will display on screen at x pixels by y (unless the browser resizes it). You can set whatever dpi you want: it will still look the same in a browser.
Jeremy
-
Dale,
I am at a technical loss. You say you save your jpegs at 72 dpi. What program are you doing that with? The only post-processing I have available to me at this time is Aperture. I need to investigate this more thoroughly I think.
It is all about the light, isn't it?
I use Paint Shop Pro to make the final JPEG, which is always 72 DPI, an internal setting. I don't know if any software can set different DPI's for each image conveniently without reconfiguring the software.
-
If you post an image that's x pixels by y, it will display on screen at x pixels by y (unless the browser resizes it). You can set whatever dpi you want: it will still look the same in a browser.
Jeremy
True, and the RAM memory consumed may be the same regardless of DPI, but the file size will be much smaller, hence fewer bytes to transmit and load. Now whether load times will be proportionately less or not, I don't know, since different transmissions may pre-compress the data differently.
-
True, and the RAM memory consumed may be the same regardless of DPI, but the file size will be much smaller, hence fewer bytes to transmit and load. Now whether load times will be proportionately less or not, I don't know, since different transmissions may pre-compress the data differently.
Dale, file size in Bytes or Kilobytes has nothing to do with the DPI settings. Kikashi said it, I will explain it with more detail.
Pixel size, DPI and Inches are 3 values wich all define image size. Pixels are the size in the Computer, Inches are a real world size and DPI tells about the density the pixels are printed.
Each alone is meaningless. If you say: This computer image is in 72 dpi, I will wonder how big it is. It could be 2x2 meters, or just 1x1 inch, I dont know.
Same with the Real world size: If I assign a file to be printed at 10x10 Inches thats fine, but how many pixels it has? Has it 300x300, or only 20x20 pixels? I cant know. Or if I have a file 640x480 pixels, that says nothing about real world size.
So in order to state size in real world and size in pixels, you need 2 of these 3 values.
Pixels together with dpi gives you a fixed output size in inches.
Pixels together with inches tell you about the dpi the file must have.
And finally DPI and Inches together tell you the size in pixels the computer file will have.
So while it CAN be true that a 72dpi file is smaller on the harddisk than a 200 dpi file, it tells only half of the story!
Indeed it might be a big print, wich had been reduced from 200 dpi to 72 by reducing its pixel size. In this case, the file size in KB gets smaller.
But it also could be that one only changes the dpi value without touching pixel size, then the file size in KB will of course be the same, but the print size would change.
So, summing it up, saying that saving a file at 72 dpi reduces its size is ambiguous, and dont relates coactive to file size.
Hope thats more clear,
Christian
-
Dale,
Russ just let me know on my other photo that I need to keep the size down. I think that goes along with what you're saying here. I have a 24 inch monitor so I don't notice it. I'm learning here.
Pup,
I wasn't talking about the dimensions of the picture. I was talking about the size of the file in terms of how long it takes to load. Nothing wrong with posting large dimensions, but on a 72 ppi monitor keeping the .jpeg compression low (which keeps the file size large) doesn't improve what people out there see. It just delays being able to see it. If you hold the file size to around 500K it makes life easier.
Regards,
-
Pup,
I wasn't talking about the dimensions of the picture. I was talking about the size of the file in terms of how long it takes to load. Nothing wrong with posting large dimensions, but on a 72 ppi monitor keeping the .jpeg compression low (which keeps the file size large) doesn't improve what people out there see. It just delays being able to see it. If you hold the file size to around 500K it makes life easier.
Regards,
Russ,
I have figured out what I need to do to keep my file sizes about 500K. Thanks to everyone for the help.
Now, does anyone have anything to say about this particular shot of mine? Critique please.
-
My 2 cents = noise reduction. Noise is causing that grainy look in the darker parts of the picture such as the tree on the right hand side of the picture. Compare this to your original to see what I mean:
(http://i593.photobucket.com/albums/tt18/MR-FEESH/FZ50/Lorraine__s_pictures_from_iPhoto_1.jpg)
(I used LR for noise reduction in case you were wondering)
Elby
-
Dale, file size in Bytes or Kilobytes has nothing to do with the DPI settings. Kikashi said it, I will explain it with more detail.
Pixel size, DPI and Inches are 3 values wich all define image size. Pixels are the size in the Computer, Inches are a real world size and DPI tells about the density the pixels are printed.
Each alone is meaningless.
Christian
True enough. Not a simple calculation. Whatever the final arbiter of size is, I find that I almost always get the minimum file size in the copy of PSP I use, and I assumed that the DPI setting was it.
-
Russ,
I have figured out what I need to do to keep my file sizes about 500K. Thanks to everyone for the help.
Now, does anyone have anything to say about this particular shot of mine? Critique please.
Okay. Here's my critique: I see what you were trying to do. Looking out the window and seeing that shaft of sunlight is an uplifting experience, especially in the morning. I get the same kind of uplift from the rocks outside my dining room windows in the morning:
[attachment=14452:25_Jul_05_01.jpg]
But the beauty of a scene like that -- the way it strikes your eye, and your psyche -- doesn't necessarily translate directly into a photograph. I think the picture fails by being too specific. You've pointed your camera at the bright leaves and zoomed in on them to the exclusion of the background. What background there is is nicely muted and makes a good contrast with the leaves, but there's no sense of place in the picture. Since I can't see outside the bounds of the picture, I can't tell whether or not it would have been possible to back off and give the leaves location. But without location the leaves are just some bright leaves.
-
My 2 cents = noise reduction. Noise is causing that grainy look in the darker parts of the picture such as the tree on the right hand side of the picture. Compare this to your original to see what I mean:
(http://i593.photobucket.com/albums/tt18/MR-FEESH/FZ50/Lorraine__s_pictures_from_iPhoto_1.jpg)
(I used LR for noise reduction in case you were wondering)
Elby
I can actually see the noise better in my original in Aperture than I can here. I have my settings set for auto noise reduction, and apparently in this case, it is not sufficient. I think I am right in saying that noise is commonly going to be more apparent in dark areas of a photo. One more thing to look for more carefully when I am post-processing.
-
Okay. Here's my critique: I see what you were trying to do. Looking out the window and seeing that shaft of sunlight is an uplifting experience, especially in the morning. I get the same kind of uplift from the rocks outside my dining room windows in the morning:
[attachment=14452:25_Jul_05_01.jpg]
But the beauty of a scene like that -- the way it strikes your eye, and your psyche -- doesn't necessarily translate directly into a photograph. I think the picture fails by being too specific. You've pointed your camera at the bright leaves and zoomed in on them to the exclusion of the background. What background there is is nicely muted and makes a good contrast with the leaves, but there's no sense of place in the picture. Since I can't see outside the bounds of the picture, I can't tell whether or not it would have been possible to back off and give the leaves location. But without location the leaves are just some bright leaves.
Russ,
How true, how true. Do you think that backing up substantially so that you get a sense of the tree beside the deck would have given "a sense of place?" Or did I misunderstand you? If I did, can you clarify? And thinking about this matter of a sense of place, would you agree that this is what's lacking in so many sunrise/sunset shots that makes them just another sunrise/sunset.
I have always been one to zoom in, crop close, a lot of macro. I think it may be time for me to challenge myself to see the place as well as the detail; the forest and the trees if you will.
-
Russ,
How true, how true. Do you think that backing up substantially so that you get a sense of the tree beside the deck would have given "a sense of place?" Or did I misunderstand you? If I did, can you clarify? And thinking about this matter of a sense of place, would you agree that this is what's lacking in so many sunrise/sunset shots that makes them just another sunrise/sunset.
I have always been one to zoom in, crop close, a lot of macro. I think it may be time for me to challenge myself to see the place as well as the detail; the forest and the trees if you will.
Pup,
I can't tell whether or not backing up would solve the problem since I can't see the whole scene. That's something you'd have to decide. But I do think that a lot of shots like this one fail because the sense of place isn't there. If you're going to shoot trees or branches, Ansel Adams probably is the best teacher of all. Just off hand I can't think of a single one of his shots of trees that didn't place the tree in its surroundings. Here's a URL with an example: http://cday89.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/...ms-yosemite.jpg (http://cday89.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/ansel-adams-yosemite.jpg).
There are a lot of situations where close cropping is the right thing to do. Unfortunately I don't think anyone can come up with a rule of thumb that would help make that decision. It's something your trained eye has to tell you. That's why I keep harping on the idea that to train your eye you need to spend a lot of time looking at pictures by the masters. There are good reasons why they're masters, and one of them is the amount of practice they put into their art.
-
Russ,
How true, how true. Do you think that backing up substantially so that you get a sense of the tree beside the deck would have given "a sense of place?" Or did I misunderstand you? If I did, can you clarify? And thinking about this matter of a sense of place, would you agree that this is what's lacking in so many sunrise/sunset shots that makes them just another sunrise/sunset.
I have always been one to zoom in, crop close, a lot of macro. I think it may be time for me to challenge myself to see the place as well as the detail; the forest and the trees if you will.
Cropping close isn't necessarily a problem, but it tends to be, since more often than not, it gets too close. Backing up can also be a problem when the stuff that's not in the current frame doesn't fit anyway. What really matters is framing the original to get the *best* shot, or if you don't have several images with different zoom-in perspectives, just getting the best crop from what you have. That doesn't mean you'll get what you want, but you can experiment all you like.
The biggest improvement I made since posting here for the first time was backing up and getting more of a scene than just a particular thing. Russ should be able to explain that as well as anyone.
-
Pup,
I can't tell whether or not backing up would solve the problem since I can't see the whole scene. That's something you'd have to decide. But I do think that a lot of shots like this one fail because the sense of place isn't there. If you're going to shoot trees or branches, Ansel Adams probably is the best teacher of all. Just off hand I can't think of a single one of his shots of trees that didn't place the tree in its surroundings. Here's a URL with an example: http://cday89.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/...ms-yosemite.jpg (http://cday89.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/ansel-adams-yosemite.jpg).
There are a lot of situations where close cropping is the right thing to do. Unfortunately I don't think anyone can come up with a rule of thumb that would help make that decision. It's something your trained eye has to tell you. That's why I keep harping on the idea that to train your eye you need to spend a lot of time looking at pictures by the masters. There are good reasons why they're masters, and one of them is the amount of practice they put into their art.
Russ,
Your reference of an Ansel Adams shot clarifies everything for me concerning "sense of place." And would you then agree that successful photos, whether they are close-cropped, macro or anything else, would convey that "sense of place?"
I've read in other threads here what you have said about studying the masters, not just of photography but of art in general. I must say that as I make the effort to develop myself as a photographer, not just as snapshooter, that I can see the wisdom in studying the masters. I know some others here beg the question by saying they don't want to be copying what they see in the masters. I don't think you can go wrong by copying the basic rules of composition, color, form, sense of place. By knowing the rules and being able to apply them makes you stronger as a photographer, not weaker. Understanding and application do not result in copying.
Off my soapbox.
-
Russ,
Your reference of an Ansel Adams shot clarifies everything for me concerning "sense of place." And would you then agree that successful photos, whether they are close-cropped, macro or anything else, would convey that "sense of place?"
I've read in other threads here what you have said about studying the masters, not just of photography but of art in general. I must say that as I make the effort to develop myself as a photographer, not just as snapshooter, that I can see the wisdom in studying the masters. I know some others here beg the question by saying they don't want to be copying what they see in the masters. I don't think you can go wrong by copying the basic rules of composition, color, form, sense of place. By knowing the rules and being able to apply them makes you stronger as a photographer, not weaker. Understanding and application do not result in copying.
Off my soapbox.
Pardon the intrusion - all of this is correct. When we argue about studying the masters, it's just a matter of at what point you break off and make your own art that's uniquely you. A personal judgement you'll have to make in any case.
-
Pardon the intrusion - all of this is correct. When we argue about studying the masters, it's just a matter of at what point you break off and make your own art that's uniquely you. A personal judgement you'll have to make in any case.
No intrusion. And I think what you say applies to any artistic endeavor.
-
...
http://cday89.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/...ms-yosemite.jpg (http://cday89.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/ansel-adams-yosemite.jpg).
Very interesting. So in this one, he deliberately choosed a view where he had a mountain behind this nice tree...
-
Very interesting. So in this one, he deliberately choosed a view where he had a mountain behind this nice tree...
Yes. He showed the tree in its environment. Sometimes part of a tree is interesting -- something like a large knot in sidelight -- but usually the whole tree is what's interesting, in relation to its environment.
-
Yes. He showed the tree in its environment. Sometimes part of a tree is interesting -- something like a large knot in sidelight -- but usually the whole tree is what's interesting, in relation to its environment.
That tree, without the mountain there, could have been anywhere; just a tree. I think this is a perfect example of sense of place.
-
Pardon the intrusion - all of this is correct. When we argue about studying the masters, it's just a matter of at what point you break off and make your own art that's uniquely you. A personal judgement you'll have to make in any case.
Dale, As I've pointed out before, you don't "break off." You're not absorbing the work of the masters because you're trying to copy it. You're looking at those pictures because they help you get your head around the idea of what constitutes good composition and good graphic balance. On the other hand, I think it sometimes helps to try to copy the masters. You can't really do it, and it teaches you about some of the difficulties involved in doing what they do (or did). In other words, trying to copy the masters can lead you to a level of humility in your approach to photography. You learn, for instance, as HCB put it: to "approach the subject on tiptoe -- even if the subject is a still life." My wife started a gallery in the seventies. We owned it for ten years. During those years I saw all sorts of art come through the doors, and one thing I learned is that the "artists" who refused to learn the history of their art simply didn't do very good work. Breaking the rules often leads to good work and something new, but you have to learn what the rules are before you know enough to break them in a constructive way.
-
That tree, without the mountain there, could have been anywhere; just a tree. I think this is a perfect example of sense of place.
Yes, but Im not sure I would have realized it intuitively that the mountain PLUS the tree was making it if it has not been pointed out. I was at the point thinking, some trees are really interesting, but not knowing what this exactly was. So, boring trees --> Zoom in to make it interesting & get detail ---> Boring leaves, at least possibly.
That leads me to the througt, not everything you are able to enjoy as "nice" in the real life works as a photo. This is because we are able to separate the things we are seeing, to detach them from the surroundings. This is a nice tree, and I am not seeing that it may be in fact a too common view to be enjoyed by many. In the photo, the commonness gets obvious to other, but I may not grasp it immeatedly, because I have seen it for real, and for me that may last in the photo. On the other hand if I showed the tree in its ordinary surroundings, it gets just that for a viewer, a ordinary tree in the ordinary enviroment. Makes sense?
-
That leads me to the thought, not everything you are able to enjoy as "nice" in the real life works as a photo. Makes sense?
Christian,
It makes all kinds of sense. That's the whole point of learning, from the masters and from your own successes and failures, the difference between something that looks "nice" and something that makes a good photograph.
-
Christian,
It makes all kinds of sense. That's the whole point of learning, from the masters and from your own successes and failures, the difference between something that looks "nice" and something that makes a good photograph.
I like it being here. Should have come sooner.
-
Dale, As I've pointed out before, you don't "break off."
You learn, for instance, as HCB put it: to "approach the subject on tiptoe
Breaking off is no different from leaving home for the first time - traumatic for some, not for others. But you still have to, to sever the umbilical cord.
I never approach on tiptoe - I follow the Jack Lalanne school as applied to art - don't climb out of that chair - leap out.
-
It makes all kinds of sense. That's the whole point of learning, from the masters and from your own successes and failures, the difference between something that looks "nice" and something that makes a good photograph.
Uh-uh. Part of what separates the photographic artist from the mere photographer is the second half of digital photography - post processing. That's where you take the "looks nice" and make it look awesome. Go to the main page on LL and some of those links will help you see what you can do.
-
Breaking off is no different from leaving home for the first time - traumatic for some, not for others. But you still have to, to sever the umbilical cord.
I never approach on tiptoe - I follow the Jack Lalanne school as applied to art - don't climb out of that chair - leap out.
Dale, If you actually believe that studying the work of the masters will grow you an umbilical cord you're never going to become a "photographic artist."
By the way, not approaching on tiptoe and "leaping out" also is called "blundering."
-
Dale, If you actually believe that studying the work of the masters will grow you an umbilical cord you're never going to become a photographer.
I have the perfect solution for that, Russ. They can use my umbilical cord. I'm still alive, and creative, and they're not.
BTW, besides the main page here which has so much to spark some good thinking, I recommend the old Flip Wilson comedy video where he plays God, and gives insight on creativity. It's not only funny, but actually makes a person think about the hows and whys of creativity.
Let's face it, the transition from snapshooter to a photographic artist who can impress the mavens of LL is way too big to describe here. Forget about my efforts, they're not important. Just think about those people reading this, and what can we tell them besides "go look it up somewhere?" I'll go along with your advice to people who want to learn, up to a point. And up to a point should be good enough, yes? After all, it's just another opinion.
-
I recommend the old Flip Wilson comedy video where he plays God, and gives insight on creativity. It's not only funny, but actually makes a person think about the hows and whys of creativity.
Dale, The fact that your creativity studies seem to depend heavily on movie jokes explains a lot.
-
Dale, The fact that your creativity studies seem to depend heavily on movie jokes explains a lot.
Russ, you can't simplify life and the moviegoing experience like that. The experience of all things in the world meshes with your own stored experiences and personality, and produces whatever result. People read books, and don't "see" the items described with their eyes - they see with their mind, and its memories. When you talk about the "masters", they don't have the whole of life experience within their portfolios, so you have to fill in a lot of things.
You aren't allowing people here a lot of credit, that when and if they see the Flip Wilson bit, that they can't get a lot out of it. It just takes patience and imagination. I carry my images with me on a small computer, and show some of them when it's relevant to something going on where I am at the time. I don't bore people with slideshows - I just get to the point and then drop it.
Having a video clip of a comedy bit as an illustration of something is an excellent device, as good as carrying an electronic dictionary, or a digital camera. Then again, some folks might think a digital camera is the devil's poison that killed real photography.
-
You aren't allowing people here a lot of credit, that when and if they see the Flip Wilson bit, that they can't get a lot out of it.
Dale, Here's my problem: On the one hand you keep telling people here that they can't get much out of looking at the photographs of the masters, what you call those "dead dudes," though a number of them are quite alive, and then in the next breath you tell them they can learn a lot about photography from watching a Flip Wilson "bit," or reading about Minnesota Fats, a pool hustler. Somehow that kind of advice just doesn't seem to track. You also try to tell them that if they study the masters they'll get hooked into trying to copy the masters, and never develop their own styles. It bothers me that someone might actually believe you and avoid doing the thing most likely to teach him about photographic composition: looking at great photographs. I know you don't look at great photographs because I can see it in your work, but please don't point any of the beginners on these threads in that direction. It's not fair to them.
If you want to respond to this post, have at it. I've stated my case as clearly as I know how, and I'm dropping it right here.
-
Dale, Here's my problem: On the one hand you keep telling people here that they can't get much out of looking at the photographs of the masters, what you call those "dead dudes," though a number of them are quite alive, and then in the next breath you tell them they can learn a lot about photography from watching a Flip Wilson "bit," or reading about Minnesota Fats, a pool hustler. Somehow that kind of advice just doesn't seem to track. You also try to tell them that if they study the masters they'll get hooked into trying to copy the masters, and never develop their own styles. It bothers me that someone might actually believe you and avoid doing the thing most likely to teach him about photographic composition: looking at great photographs. I know you don't look at great photographs because I can see it in your work, but please don't point any of the beginners on these threads in that direction. It's not fair to them.
If you want to respond to this post, have at it. I've stated my case as clearly as I know how, and I'm dropping it right here.
I told you before, if you really meant to drop it, you'd click the ignore button, since we never agree anyway. But you won't click ignore, because you are eagerly awaiting my next dose of wisdom. I don't recommend the front-page people here over your "dead dudes" just because this is after all Luminous Landscape, I do it because they know who the masters are, and they're alive and teaching right here.
Now, if you do agree somehow that the front page people here really do know who the masters are, and given my hearty recommendation of them, that would contradict your statements above, yes? You can't have it both ways, sir.