Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: red  (Read 4221 times)

button

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
    • http://
red
« on: June 30, 2009, 11:41:36 PM »

Thanks for the comments.

[attachment=14991:red.jpg]
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1054
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
red
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2009, 01:03:13 AM »

Nice concept and I like the lines.

Only distraction is the out of focus lower part of th wood tecture (my eye just wants to see sharp there). Looking at the angle I think dof will never be sufficient, but with focus stacking you might be able to achieve the whole height in focus.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

wolfnowl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5821
    • M&M's Musings
red
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2009, 01:59:18 AM »

Quote from: pegelli
Nice concept and I like the lines.

Only distraction is the out of focus lower part of th wood tecture (my eye just wants to see sharp there). Looking at the angle I think dof will never be sufficient, but with focus stacking you might be able to achieve the whole height in focus.

Yes, that would be good... Still, I think the 'what the hell am I looking at?' factor has a lot going for it!

Mike.
Logged
If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~

My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings

cmi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 492
red
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2009, 06:02:03 AM »

Yes, interesting because of the strong color, and I dont know what Im looking at. But the out of focus area destroys it for me.
Logged

byork

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 125
    • http://
red
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2009, 07:00:04 AM »

Quote from: wolfnowl
Yes, that would be good... Still, I think the 'what the hell am I looking at?' factor has a lot going for it!

Mike.


I think Mike has probably said it all there!! Nevertheless....forget the out of focus dribble....I found myself looking at this for quite a few minutes. Anything that has you taking a double, triple or quadruple take has got to be an interesting image. Besides, the title says it all.
Logged

button

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
    • http://
red
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2009, 08:28:58 AM »

Quote from: Christian Miersch
But the out of focus area destroys it for me.

I thought that might happen, and I'm not happy about that out of focus area, either.  This was sort of a "research shot" that I took w/ a point and shoot handheld.  I'm going to go back w/ the big guns (tripod, tilt/shift lens, lots of pixels) and make a mosaic out of it- all the little details just beg for lots of pixels.  Fortunately, the light that day won't be hard to find (the EXIF data will tell me when to shoot again)  And, I will definitely make all of it sharp.  Thanks for the replies!

John
Logged

cmi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 492
red
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2009, 09:30:13 AM »

Quote from: button
I thought that might happen, and I'm not happy about that out of focus area, either.  This was sort of a "research shot" that I took w/ a point and shoot handheld.  I'm going to go back w/ the big guns (tripod, tilt/shift lens, lots of pixels) and make a mosaic out of it- all the little details just beg for lots of pixels.  Fortunately, the light that day won't be hard to find (the EXIF data will tell me when to shoot again)  And, I will definitely make all of it sharp.  Thanks for the replies!

John

Then I would search a view wich excludes the ground to make it even more interesting. Happy reshooting!

Christian
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8266
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
red
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2009, 10:35:14 AM »

John, It's a very good abstract, and what Mike said applies big-time. Stop worrying about the "out of focus" part. "Out of focus" implies a desire for a kind of realism that doesn't enter into an abstraction like this.

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
red
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2009, 10:38:36 AM »

Quote from: Christian Miersch
Then I would search a view wich excludes the ground to make it even more interesting. Happy reshooting!

Christian

Agreed.  The issue is that the interesting part is where you start and then the lines draw you down to dirt which isn't as interesting.
Logged

button

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
    • http://
red
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2009, 10:45:39 AM »

Quote from: RSL
John, It's a very good abstract, and what Mike said applies big-time. Stop worrying about the "out of focus" part. "Out of focus" implies a desire for a kind of realism that doesn't enter into an abstraction like this.

Thanks, Russ.  I definitely want to shoot it again, just so I can get more detail- I want to print it pretty large, and I really like looking at little details in large prints.  It's kind of a "where's Waldo" game for me, and I think the fine bits in this particular image might make for a pretty fun game.  

With respect to the out of focus part.... I'm reconsidering at the moment.  I'll likely reshoot the whole thing as sharp as possible, and then blur later if I think it works.

John
Logged

button

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
    • http://
red
« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2009, 10:48:41 AM »

Quote from: DarkPenguin
Agreed.  The issue is that the interesting part is where you start and then the lines draw you down to dirt which isn't as interesting.

I was actually thinking along those lines when I shot this, and I have about three more test shots that excluded the dirt (but the red part wound up out of focus).  Maybe I should blend this one with one of those other shots and repost.

Thanks,
John
Logged

cmi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 492
red
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2009, 11:30:47 AM »

Quote from: button
I was actually thinking along those lines when I shot this, and I have about three more test shots that excluded the dirt (but the red part wound up out of focus).  Maybe I should blend this one with one of those other shots and repost.

Thanks,
John

I would it leave as it is, or crop the shot instead. Its done, it would be fixing after the fact. Ok I admit in fact I also sometimes fix afterwards! But usually not, its bad habit because its compensating for the own sloppyness (IMHO).

And by the way, after I suggested more sharpness, I wasnt so sure for myself if that was good advice. Im not sure about it anymore. If I imagine this image completely sharp... it could be more like... everything is said, one factor more that is defined, but its living from the mysterious part, so maybe it would weaken it. But then you never know until you see it. A identical pair of images except for the sharpness would be interesting to see what that changes.

Christian
« Last Edit: July 01, 2009, 11:42:51 AM by Christian Miersch »
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8266
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
red
« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2009, 12:07:17 PM »

Quote from: button
Thanks, Russ.  I definitely want to shoot it again, just so I can get more detail- I want to print it pretty large, and I really like looking at little details in large prints.  It's kind of a "where's Waldo" game for me, and I think the fine bits in this particular image might make for a pretty fun game.  

With respect to the out of focus part.... I'm reconsidering at the moment.  I'll likely reshoot the whole thing as sharp as possible, and then blur later if I think it works.

John

John, If you're concerned about it as it stands, the re-shoot is a good idea. It's true that if you get it tack sharp you have a world of options.

JeffKohn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1670
    • http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
red
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2009, 12:34:57 PM »

This is an interesting shot. I I like the strong color and the different textures. And your use of lines is very good as well; lots of shapes here for the eye to wonder over.

The only thing that throws me is that the image is tonally imbalanced. The bright light on the lower portion of the plank distracts, pulling my attention away from the rusted red surface up top. Maybe the tension this creates is what you were going for. If you do decide to re-shoot, I'd be curious what this composition looks like in different types of light.

button

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
    • http://
red
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2009, 01:51:06 PM »

Quote from: JeffKohn
This is an interesting shot. I I like the strong color and the different textures. And your use of lines is very good as well; lots of shapes here for the eye to wonder over.

The only thing that throws me is that the image is tonally imbalanced. The bright light on the lower portion of the plank distracts, pulling my attention away from the rusted red surface up top. Maybe the tension this creates is what you were going for. If you do decide to re-shoot, I'd be curious what this composition looks like in different types of light.

Thanks, Jeff- that's a good observation.  I think you could further argue that the brightness of the plank in bottom right of the image also competes for attention.  I  may reshoot this image at different times of the day to see what the light does to the feel of the shot.  At least I know that I have something worth reshooting!

John
Logged

cmi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 492
red
« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2009, 02:28:13 PM »

Quote from: button
... At least I know that I have something worth reshooting!

John,

you know, this metal keeps me really curious. I keep thinking if it couldnt also be leather (this comes because of the bends, and the structure), and for me this ambiguity is the most interesting part of the image.

My secondary thoughts are, how it could have bent this way, and that it must be real old, and why despite its age the color is so bright. I


Christian
Logged

button

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
    • http://
red
« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2009, 12:29:22 AM »

Here's a redo of this shot, which I've been working on for a few days now.  I think I've addressed the concerns with the original.  However, I would appreciate comments from more objective eyes.

[attachment=16208:red_redo.jpg]

Thanks,
John
Logged

Michael West

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 517
red
« Reply #17 on: August 24, 2009, 11:01:04 PM »

Quote from: button
Here's a redo of this shot, which I've been working on for a few days now.  I think I've addressed the concerns with the original.  However, I would appreciate comments from more objective eyes.

[attachment=16208:red_redo.jpg]

Thanks,
John

I much prefer the compostion/p.o.v. of this image.


Logged

JeffKohn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1670
    • http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
red
« Reply #18 on: August 24, 2009, 11:10:15 PM »

I definitely like the softer, more even light in the second shot. As far as the compositions go, I'm not sure I can say one is better than the other, because they both have their strengths. They're just different.  I might have to think on them a little.
Pages: [1]   Go Up