Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 52   Go Down

Author Topic: Recent Works  (Read 392176 times)

Henry Goh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
Recent Works
« Reply #260 on: July 27, 2008, 12:52:11 pm »

Coffee shop at Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi Airport this morning.  1Ds MKIII with 14mm f/2.8 lens
Logged

AlanG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 195
    • http://www.goldsteinphoto.com
Recent Works
« Reply #261 on: July 27, 2008, 02:53:57 pm »

[attachment=7641:attachment]Stitched 5D shots.
Logged
Alan Goldstein
[url=http://www.Goldstein

foxinsocks

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
    • http://www.johnyearick.com
Recent Works
« Reply #262 on: July 31, 2008, 12:52:32 pm »

A picture from a series of athletes I'm shooting for a local high school.[attachment=7710:attachment]
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10475
Recent Works
« Reply #263 on: August 01, 2008, 10:04:12 pm »

Bird and Sacred Mountain.

The mountain peak is Machapuchare, 6,993M or 22,943 ft. It's supposedly unclimbed.

[attachment=7757:attachment]

Hhmm! I wonder if I should add this to my Phallic Symbolism series.

20D, 40mm, F8.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2008, 10:06:10 pm by Ray »
Logged

Chris_Brown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 983
  • Smile dammit!
    • Chris Brown Photography
Recent Works
« Reply #264 on: August 02, 2008, 09:42:00 pm »

From this past week.
1Ds3, 45mm TS-E @ f2.8
Minimal white balance adjustment, no retouching.

[attachment=7767:attachment]
Logged
~ CB

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10475
Recent Works
« Reply #265 on: August 03, 2008, 02:56:52 am »

Quote
From this past week.
1Ds3, 45mm TS-E @ f2.8
Minimal white balance adjustment, no retouching.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212667\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can understand, Chris, that you might be trying to portray a quiet scene of eerie calm in the mist, here. But I find the OoF foreground a bit disturbing, and the general composition seems to have too much blank sky area.

The scene needs a bit of drama. Can I suggest a nice dancing girl on the float, like the one below.  

[attachment=7768:attachment]
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
Recent Works
« Reply #266 on: August 03, 2008, 03:01:45 am »

Quote
From this past week.
1Ds3, 45mm TS-E @ f2.8
Minimal white balance adjustment, no retouching.

[attachment=7767:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212667\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That's quite good.
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
Recent Works
« Reply #267 on: August 03, 2008, 03:03:58 am »

Quote
I can understand, Chris, that you might be trying to portray a quiet scene of eerie calm in the mist, here. But I find the OoF foreground a bit disturbing, and the general composition seems to have too much blank sky area.

The scene needs a bit of drama. Can I suggest a nice dancing girl on the float, like the one below.   

[attachment=7768:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212698\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I completely disagree. The OOF foreground is quite good for this type of "fine art" photograph. My only complaint would be that there needs to be more foreground to anchor solidly the image to the bottom. That would also balance the upper space.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10475
Recent Works
« Reply #268 on: August 03, 2008, 07:13:25 am »

Quote
I completely disagree. The OOF foreground is quite good for this type of "fine art" photograph. My only complaint would be that there needs to be more foreground to anchor solidly the image to the bottom. That would also balance the upper space.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212703\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If you have more foreground in the shot, then the out-of-focus nature of the foreground would distract the eye even more.

I don't see anything necessarily arty about OoF areas in the foreground. It just looks like bad technique to me.

On the other hand, some folks think that an entire image that is seriously and deliberately OoF can be artistic. Everyone's entitled to an opinion.

My own view is that OoF areas in the image should not attract the eye. If the OoF area is in the foreground, it tends to attracts the eye more readily, especially if there's nothing else in the image which has a strong draw to compete with it.

However, there are no sacrosanct rules regarding composition. If you like the shot, that's fine with me.
Logged

Chris_Brown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 983
  • Smile dammit!
    • Chris Brown Photography
Recent Works
« Reply #269 on: August 03, 2008, 09:01:17 am »

Quote
I can understand, Chris, that you might be trying to portray a quiet scene of eerie calm in the mist, here. But I find the OoF foreground a bit disturbing, and the general composition seems to have too much blank sky area.

The scene needs a bit of drama. Can I suggest a nice dancing girl on the float, like the one below. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212698\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I asked dozens of dancing women to be in the shot but as soon as I whipped out my model release forms they fled back to the disco.
Logged
~ CB

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10475
Recent Works
« Reply #270 on: August 03, 2008, 09:21:03 pm »

Quote
I asked dozens of dancing women to be in the shot but as soon as I whipped out my model release forms they fled back to the disco.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212758\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It looks as though I probably have lots of images that are really only suitable for editorial purposes   .
Logged

HarperPhotos

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1309
    • http://www.harperphoto.com
Recent Works
« Reply #271 on: August 03, 2008, 09:50:02 pm »

Quote
From this past week.
1Ds3, 45mm TS-E @ f2.8
Minimal white balance adjustment, no retouching.

[attachment=7767:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212667\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Gidday Chris,

Had a look at your website.

Lovely work, lots of colour great lighting and composition.

Cheers

Simon
« Last Edit: August 03, 2008, 09:54:14 pm by HarperPhotos »
Logged
Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand

Chris_Brown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 983
  • Smile dammit!
    • Chris Brown Photography
Recent Works
« Reply #272 on: August 03, 2008, 10:35:29 pm »

Quote
Gidday Chris,

Had a look at your website.
Lovely work, lots of colour great lighting and composition.

Cheers
Simon[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212877\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks, Simon, and likewise on your work. I covet your "eggshell cyc", too!  
Logged
~ CB

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
Recent Works
« Reply #273 on: August 04, 2008, 04:02:08 am »

Quote
If you have more foreground in the shot, then the out-of-focus nature of the foreground would distract the eye even more.

I don't see anything necessarily arty about OoF areas in the foreground. It just looks like bad technique to me.

On the other hand, some folks think that an entire image that is seriously and deliberately OoF can be artistic. Everyone's entitled to an opinion.

My own view is that OoF areas in the image should not attract the eye. If the OoF area is in the foreground, it tends to attracts the eye more readily, especially if there's nothing else in the image which has a strong draw to compete with it.

However, there are no sacrosanct rules regarding composition. If you like the shot, that's fine with me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I know. But go look at fine art type magazines and you will see all sorts of things that distract you, but they are in good magazines. Try "Shots" as an example. Of course "fine art" doesn't just mean OOF or vignetting. It's so, so, uh, vague. A lot of the style of some FA I am ambivalent about. However, OOF foreground is not an automatic show stopper when you are producing FA images.

As an alternative to what you see as distracting the eye further with more foreground OOF, I see it as directing the eye to the real subject, which is the solitary structure. I say this because our eyes look for the focus. If the entire image is OOF except the main focus point, your eye goes directly to it. The OOF area leads the eye in.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10475
Recent Works
« Reply #274 on: August 04, 2008, 07:42:14 am »

Quote
I know. But go look at fine art type magazines and you will see all sorts of things that distract you, but they are in good magazines. Try "Shots" as an example. Of course "fine art" doesn't just mean OOF or vignetting. It's so, so, uh, vague. A lot of the style of some FA I am ambivalent about. However, OOF foreground is not an automatic show stopper when you are producing FA images.

As an alternative to what you see as distracting the eye further with more foreground OOF, I see it as directing the eye to the real subject, which is the solitary structure. I say this because our eyes look for the focus. If the entire image is OOF except the main focus point, your eye goes directly to it. The OOF area leads the eye in.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212923\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes. I know. Art is about experimenting with what works. OoF foregrounds generally don't work for me, but there are exceptions. When I see a close-up portrait of someone with sharp eyes but a fuzzy nose, I think the person looks a bit odd. I wonder if the photographer really wanted the shot to turn out like that, or whether it was just a mistake or a limitation of the equipment; ie. light poor and aperture wide using a telephoto lens with a camera that didin't have low noise at high ISO, like some of the early Nikons.

Your point about the OoF foreground leading the eye to the main subject of interest is not convincing. Generally, it's lines in the composition that lead the eye to another part of the image. In this composition from Chris, there's not much there of interest in the solitary structure on the water, so the eye is likely to start wandering and return to the grassy edge of the lake (or river), searching for meaning. That's when the OoF foreground becomes distracting for me and why I suggested (tongue in cheek, of course) a dancing girl on that solitary structure. I would then not give a toss about the OoF foreground.  

Of course, there could be other reasons why one sometimes sees these portraits of personalities with fuzzy noses in weekend glossy magazines. Perhaps the interviewee has a pimple on his/her nose, or is just embarrassed about the state of his/her nose; it's too big, or too squat or too small, whatever. The photographer obliges and as a true professional says, 'Don't worry. I'll make it out-of-focus'.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2008, 08:15:06 am by Ray »
Logged

pprdigital

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422
    • http://www.phaseone.com
Recent Works
« Reply #275 on: August 04, 2008, 09:15:18 am »

Quote
From this past week.
1Ds3, 45mm TS-E @ f2.8
Minimal white balance adjustment, no retouching.

[attachment=7767:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212667\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I like the photograph. To me, it's kind of a spooky shot. The first thing I look at is the dock. Then I look down at the foreground, then I look up at the eerie nothing space. Then back down, and then it feels spooky to me. In this case, my perception is aided by the oof foreground. If the foreground was in focus, then it's possible I might have a different perception of the image. Whether my perception was the intent of the photograph or not, the oof foreground provides an interesting experience of the photograph. With the foreground in focus, a different perception may have occurred - no more or less correct, just different.



Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
Logged
Steve Hendrix
[url=http://www.phaseone.c

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10475
Recent Works
« Reply #276 on: August 04, 2008, 09:53:08 am »

Quote
I like the photograph. To me, it's kind of a spooky shot. The first thing I look at is the dock. Then I look down at the foreground, then I look up at the eerie nothing space. Then back down, and then it feels spooky to me. In this case, my perception is aided by the oof foreground. If the foreground was in focus, then it's possible I might have a different perception of the image. Whether my perception was the intent of the photograph or not, the oof foreground provides an interesting experience of the photograph. With the foreground in focus, a different perception may have occurred - no more or less correct, just different.
Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212960\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Okay! That's an interesting perspective. The OoF foreground contributes to a sense of 'spookiness'. I can appreciate that concept. Perhaps my problen is, I have a natural resistance to 'spooky' ideas. It has to be really spooky to affect me.
Logged

Chris_Brown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 983
  • Smile dammit!
    • Chris Brown Photography
Recent Works
« Reply #277 on: August 04, 2008, 01:11:01 pm »

Quote
The OoF foreground contributes to a sense of 'spookiness'. I can appreciate that concept. Perhaps my problen is, I have a natural resistance to 'spooky' ideas. It has to be really spooky to affect me.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212973\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"Spooky" wasn't intended. I just liked the lack of horizon and the glow of warm light. To some of the  guys who fish the river, they saw the perfect fishing opportunity.
Logged
~ CB

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 612
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Recent Works
« Reply #278 on: August 04, 2008, 11:21:54 pm »

Thought I'd add another...

Canon 5d, 50mm 1.4 prime at f5.6, 1/200th sec, ISO 400 - for those interested in these things:)

This photograph is of a restaurant in Batumi, Republic of Georgia.  The water in the background is the Black Sea.  Though the restaurant is called "san remo", there's no Italian food, just Georgian.

I guess I like "almost symmetrical" stuff.

-bruce
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10475
Recent Works
« Reply #279 on: August 05, 2008, 01:11:44 am »

Quote
Thought I'd add another...

Canon 5d, 50mm 1.4 prime at f5.6, 1/200th sec, ISO 400 - for those interested in these things:)

This photograph is of a restaurant in Batumi, Republic of Georgia.  The water in the background is the Black Sea.  Though the restaurant is called "san remo", there's no Italian food, just Georgian.

I guess I like "almost symmetrical" stuff.

-bruce
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now this is the sort of image where an OoF foreground might not matter much, one way or the other. The compositional lines leading the eye to the centre of interest are strong, irrespective of the focussing of the foreground. Perhaps an OoF foreground would even help this image; perhaps provide a sort of symmetrical counterpoint to the tack sharp restaurant, without competing with the centre of interest.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 52   Go Up