Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: stamper on March 27, 2015, 06:41:10 am
-
Not sure if they caught anything or got caught? Possibly a crop at the top?
-
I like and I don't think that cropping the top would improve it.
Well seen!
-
Great street, Stamper. Takes a moment to see what's going on.
-
Firstly, well seen indeed - and then well done for applying the slow shutter treatment. Very nice!
-
Great street, Stamper. Takes a moment to see what's going on.
+1.
If anything, they may have caught a bad cold.
As Russ says, this image has lots of good stuff in it.
And please don't crop (and not just because it would offend Russ. ;) )
-
I was using a tripod and ND filters to slow down the speed of the water when I saw the older angler carrying the younger angler across the top of the waterfall on his back to get to where they wanted to fish. It probably wasn't as dangerous as it looked but a slip would have been harmful. The top half of the image is a deserted rail bridge. The river holds salmon and sea trout so it is popular with anglers and this is a popular area to fish and it is in the centre of Glasgow, Scotland. The river Kelvin.
-
Stamper, I have really enjoyed many of your pictures shown here in the past six or seven months. It is almost as though something has "clicked" (pun intended) with you. I like your processing too.
Top stuff and this one is in the same league, keep going!
(You still seem to be has grumpy as ever looking at a few other threads going around, but one cannot expect too much change, can one? ;) )
William
-
Nope. The older I get the grumpier and less accommodating I get. :'(
-
You caught a whopper. This image would look great printed onto a nice big sheet of Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta.
-
Love it and, no, I wouldn't crop it ;)
-
... Possibly a crop at the top?
Definitely.
Good catch, sloppy processing.
-
Definitely.
Good catch, sloppy processing.
Odd man out....so far.
-
Cropping
This is how my eye scans the image, even at the thumbnail size. In other words, it starts in the lower left, where we naturally (in the western world) start, then follows the highlights and quickly rushes to the top (bypassing the anglers), where there is nothing to stop it, and leaves the image way too fast. The strong vertical, repeated presence of bridge pillars serves as a pointer for the eye. With nothing above it to stop it, the eye leaves the image. Cropping to the black horizontal line would stop it.
-
I don't often agree on a crop, but this time I do.
-
Processing
I guess you realized that, without your processing intervention, anglers would escape most people's attention, for the reasons described in my previous post. So you decided to add some emphasis to them, to make them more noticeable. Nothing wrong with that. Except you did it in a sloppy way, not careful and precise enough. You dodged the boy's face (again, nothing wrong with the idea), but you went too far. There is no reason for the boy's face to be lighter than his father's. It is clear that the boy's face is in the shade, not in the sun, as his hand and leg are (in the green circle). Also, there is no reason for the father's collar to be so bright white in the shade.
-
Slobodan has a point about the PP of the faces. Just a thought: since the kid's face seems blurry/featureless, why not substitute another for it. Of course, I am not a purist or a journalist. I sometimes think all is fair in love and art.
-
Slobodan has a point about the PP of the faces. Just a thought: since the kid's face seems blurry/featureless, why not substitute another for it. Of course, I am not a purist or a journalist. I sometimes think all is fair in love and art.
Yes, a tack-sharp, perfectly lit Justin Bieber face would do the trick. ;D
-
Yes, a tack-sharp, perfectly lit Justin Bieber face would do the trick. ;D
Yes, with him in play, I think that the thread title* would make much more sense ;)
* Check any urban dictionary
-
I don't often agree on a crop, but this time I do.
Russ your earlier post.
Great street, Stamper. Takes a moment to see what's going on.
You are now appearing to contradict yourself?
-
Cropping
This is how my eye scans the image, even at the thumbnail size. In other words, it starts in the lower left, where we naturally (in the western world) start, then follows the highlights and quickly rushes to the top (bypassing the anglers), where there is nothing to stop it, and leaves the image way too fast. The strong vertical, repeated presence of bridge pillars serves as the pointer for the eye. With nothing above it to stop it, the eye leaves the image. Cropping to the black horizontal line would stop it.
Guilty of over analysing an image Slobodan.
-
Slobodan has a point about the PP of the faces. Just a thought: since the kid's face seems blurry/featureless, why not substitute another for it. Of course, I am not a purist or a journalist. I sometimes think all is fair in love and art.
Anyone who has any knowledge of using ND filters will know that certain parts of an image will be blurred. This image has an exposure of several seconds. I was very surprised that any of the features were in any way sharp never mind totally blurred. Light areas in an image tend to become lighter when the exposure is increased. Up until Slobodan's post everyone seemed happy with the image now that he has decided tp forensically analyse it they somehow don't feel too happy about it? Never mind I'm relaxed about it because Slobodan's motives or quite obvious...at least to me?
-
Cropping
This is how my eye scans the image, even at the thumbnail size. In other words, it starts in the lower left, where we naturally (in the western world) start, then follows the highlights and quickly rushes to the top (bypassing the anglers), where there is nothing to stop it, and leaves the image way too fast. The strong vertical, repeated presence of bridge pillars serves as the pointer for the eye. With nothing above it to stop it, the eye leaves the image. Cropping to the black horizontal line would stop it.
Leaving the top in gives a sense of what the scene was that the anglers were inhabiting.
As to....we naturally (in the western world).... then that wasn't always the case and possibly you haven't quite adapted to it. :(
-
Russ your earlier post.
Great street, Stamper. Takes a moment to see what's going on.
You are now appearing to contradict yourself?
I don't think so. Slobodan has a point. The details above the horizontal line are a bit distracting, and without them it doesn't take so long to figure out what's going on.
With or without the crop it's a fine shot. With the crop it might be even finer. I'm tempted to pull it off the web and try it myself.
-
Russ your earlier post.
Great street, Stamper. Takes a moment to see what's going on.
You are now appearing to contradict yourself?
No, no contradiction there. It does take a moment precisely for the reasons I explained in the cropping comment. Quick glance at the image results in an eye path that does not detect any correlation to the title. The eye has left the image without noticing "what's going on." Only then the viewer starts asking the question: "Wait, where is anything that has to do with watersports? Let me then go back and look into the image more carefully." That is why it "takes a moment."
-
Guilty of over analysing an image Slobodan.
Not really... it takes a second of glancing at the thumbnail (for a trained eye) to intuitively grasp the need for cropping. The analytical part comes only when the brain tries to find a rational explanation for the initial hunch.
-
... As to....we naturally (in the western world).... then that wasn't always the case and possibly you haven't quite adapted to it. :(
Wait, is that a cheap shot at my national origin? Are you trying to suggest that i do not (fully) belong to the western world?
For you information, "western world" in this context (i.e., reading from left to right) includes most of the world, excluding some Far East and Middle East areas. In that sense, Eastern Europe is a part of the western world.
-
... because Slobodan's motives or quite obvious...at least to me?
Stamper, my motives are to help you, as a fellow photographer. And I will continue to do so in spite your grumpy reactions. My view has always been that one negative critique could be more valuable than 10 empty accolades, if taken properly.
-
Guilty of over analysing an image Slobodan.
Or maybe he has a point. I'd also crop the top section above the graffiti and the picture seems off to me processing wise too. It seems both too contrasty at top and a bit too flat at bottom.
But although I like the idea of the photo, the blurred face of the boy is a bit creepy. It looks like he's been censored out or that maybe he's a character from Dr Who. ;)
I'd also have added some extra space to right of shot, so railway pillar isn't abutting edge - if that was even an option for you to do.
-
No, no contradiction there. It does take a moment precisely for the reasons I explained in the cropping comment. Quick glance at the image results in an eye path that does not detect any correlation to the title. The eye has left the image without noticing "what's going on." Only then the viewer starts asking the question: "Wait, where is anything that has to do with watersports? Let me then go back and look into the image more carefully." That is why it "takes a moment."
The title was an attempt at humour and wasn't meant to be taken seriously. A lot photographers don't give their images a title so the thrust of your argument is rather pointless?
-
Wait, is that a cheap shot at my national origin? Are you trying to suggest that i do not (fully) belong to the western world?
For you information, "western world" in this context (i.e., reading from left to right) includes most of the world, excluding some Far East and Middle East areas. In that sense, Eastern Europe is a part of the western world.
Your statement about the western world imo was akin to preaching rather than being informative. An experienced photographer is well aware of the reading from left to right is how the eyes see an image. You state you wanted to help but I think you look as is you are giving lessons rather than critique or being helpful? Downloading the image and sticking red arrows on it to try and prove a point isn't helpful. You obviously "see" a lot more in an image than myself and I suspect others "see" less than you. My liking for an image is instinctive and I think I am more forgiving of small deficiencies in an image than you?
-
I don't think so. Slobodan has a point. The details above the horizontal line are a bit distracting, and without them it doesn't take so long to figure out what's going on.
With or without the crop it's a fine shot. With the crop it might be even finer. I'm tempted to pull it off the web and try it myself.
I am now inclined to not cropping because the framing as it is sets the scene for the hazardous position that they are in. However I understand why someone would suggest a crop.
-
Or maybe he has a point. I'd also crop the top section above the graffiti and the picture seems off to me processing wise too. It seems both too contrasty at top and a bit too flat at bottom.
But although I like the idea of the photo, the blurred face of the boy is a bit creepy. It looks like he's been censored out or that maybe he's a character from Dr Who. ;)
I'd also have added some extra space to right of shot, so railway pillar isn't abutting edge - if that was even an option for you to do.
It is a while since I took the shot but if my ageing memory is functioning properly then there is clutter on both sides that I probably cropped out. As I stated earlier the blurring of the face was because of the ND filter. The problem in this type of shot is the blurring can work on some parts of the image and not on others. I fully expected that someone would suggest cloning the fishing line that shows signs of blurring
-
All nitpicking aside, it's still a fine shot.
-
Thanks for all of the positive feedback.