RE: learning composition
Sometime during 14/02/2005, Jens Bladt & Paul Stenquist wrote: From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I agree with Paul. To me compostition is about how to take the eyes of the spectatores for a I ride around/into the picture. So, often, it's about lines. It's also about light. The bright parts seem to catch the eyes first. Bright parts of a photograph need to be important(essential - or at least to lead the eyes to where the messages is. This is one of the reasons, that a portrait with a very bright background (passport photographs) are rarely very pleasing. The eyes want to wander away from the face and the essential part of the image. This can be mended in a way, by creating dark corners (oposite vignetting) - to create a bright, central part of the image. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You have a very good sense of composition and frame. I find almost all of these quite excellent. The only exception would be the windmill, which appears somewhat awkward and disjointed to my eye. But the others are very good. The staircase is a great composition, so too the graffiti. The frosted tree is a very pretty shot. Nice work and welcome to the list. Paul Stenquist [ Re this photo http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1695498 ] Thanks for the comments. I found another couple of photos of that windmill I'd taken at the time. I'm not sure either solve any of the problems, but... http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3121854 which seems to be leaning over slightly, and then from a bit further back http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3121870 which might benefit from being cropped a little on the left and perhaps right. Eric.
Re: learning composition
Thanks for taking the time to look through all these and commenting... At 08:17 pm 14/02/2005, William Robb wrote: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2829464 No real subject, not enough detail in the shadows. Sorry, this one's a mess. Damn, I quite liked that one ;-) > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2815949 Nice simple composition. The asymmetry was a good idea. > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1695498 Doesn't do much for me. > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3012317 You may not think it is interesting, but I like this sort of stuff. This one is spoiled by the right side being out of focus. I think a healthy crop of the bottom right would be an inmprovement. Yep, I can see that being better. > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2437740 Not sharp, the highlights are blown, and there sin't enough shadow detail. This one would have worked better if you had done just about everything but the composition differently. More exposure to bring up the shadows, less development to tame the hightlights, and a smaller aperture to tighten up the lens. This type of picture is about technical proficiency, and your representation isn't up to it. Sorry to be so blunt. No problem, blunt is fine by me. I don't do developing and printing myself, but I guess some of those changes could be done in photoshop to an extent, not that that is really the way I want to work! I can't remember the shutter speed and aperture. It may have been that my focusing itself was off as it was such a bright summer's day with that window in direct sunlight that I'm guessing the aperture would have be smallish anyway. > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1654796 You say you put some thought into this one, and it shows. There are some irritants in the scene itself. The plaque is quite ugly, and the dark thing near the upper left corner is annoying. At the same time, the picture needs the area above the steps, and the feeling of depth that is conveyed in the composition you chose. I think you were wise to bite the bullet and just include the plaque. Sometimes we just have to accept that the scene is what it is, we can't do anything about it, and so we should just try to present what is there as nicely as we can. You have done a good job on this one. Overall, the picture looks a little soft to me, and could really use a little more oomph. Were I printing this one, I would split contrast print it to get a little more out of the brick detail, Perhaps burn the street area and sidewalk with a #5 filter to dress it up a bit. This one just needs a bit of refinement, and perhaps a bit of revisionism with a cloning tool if you are taking a digital approach to the process (lose the plaque). Did you explore the area more? It looks like there are a plethora of photo opportunities there. William Robb Yes I did explore further. On top of the left hand wall is another long set of steps which I had a go a capturing too. I'll maybe post those if I get time. Thanks again for the comments. Eric.
Re: learning composition
From: "William Robb" >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1654796 > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/1654796unmushed.jpg I took the liberty of giving this one a bit of a tweak. William Robb Yes, that's certainly better. I've had a look at them both side by side. Cheers, Eric.
RE: learning composition
Hmmm, the vertical one is a nice windmill pic, but it feels kind of standard. Not much going on here. A very tight crop might help. I think part of the problem is that a windmill is a classic photographic subject that we've all seen before. A really unusual perspective that still makes a nice composition would probably win the day. Paul > Sometime during 14/02/2005, Jens Bladt & Paul Stenquist wrote: > >From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >I agree with Paul. > >To me compostition is about how to take the eyes of the spectatores for a I > >ride around/into the picture. > >So, often, it's about lines. > >It's also about light. The bright parts seem to catch the eyes first. > >Bright parts of a photograph need to be important(essential - or at least to > >lead the eyes to where the messages is. > >This is one of the reasons, that a portrait with a very bright background > >(passport photographs) are rarely very pleasing. > >The eyes want to wander away from the face and the essential part of the > >image. This can be mended in a way, by creating dark corners (oposite > >vignetting) - to create a bright, central part of the image. > > > >Jens Bladt > >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > > > >-Oprindelig meddelelse- > >Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >You have a very good sense of composition and frame. I find almost all > >of these quite excellent. The only exception would be the windmill, > >which appears somewhat awkward and disjointed to my eye. But the others > >are very good. The staircase is a great composition, so too the > >graffiti. The frosted tree is a very pretty shot. Nice work and welcome > >to the list. > >Paul Stenquist > > [ Re this photo http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1695498 ] > > Thanks for the comments. I found another couple of photos of that windmill > I'd taken at the time. I'm not sure either solve any of the problems, but... > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3121854 > which seems to be leaning over slightly, and then from a bit further back > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3121870 > which might benefit from being cropped a little on the left and perhaps right. > > Eric. > > >
Re: learning composition (was Re: PESO: Automaton)
You have a very good sense of composition and frame. I find almost all of these quite excellent. The only exception would be the windmill, which appears somewhat awkward and disjointed to my eye. But the others are very good. The staircase is a great composition, so too the graffiti. The frosted tree is a very pretty shot. Nice work and welcome to the list. Paul Stenquist On Feb 13, 2005, at 7:13 PM, Eric Featherstone wrote: At 04:26 am 12/02/2005, frank theriault wrote: Hi, Eric, Why do you think you need to learn more about composition? I bet you know more than you think. I think you should post pix to the list immediately, so we can all ponder your compositional skills (or lack thereof ), and tell you what you did wrong, and how you should have taken the photos . Seriously, I think it would be a good thing to post a few, just to see what other people think of your work. If you've been taking photos for 15 years, you must have a few... BTW, the advice that others gave you WRT books to read and things to do is all great, and you should do it. And, before I go, welcome to the list. If you've been lurking for some time, you likely already know this, but if you don't, remember: Don't believe anything I say. cheers, frank Firstly, many thanks to William, Shel, Collin, Bob and Frank (did I miss anyone?) for your welcome and advice, it's all noted and I'll try out your suggestions. Well, some at least, I'll see how time goes ;-) Actually I have already tried one of the ideas, in part, using the MX with 50mm only. I went out with a roll of XP2 trying to find patterns, lines, textures etc. Not so many of the photos turned out to be interesting but some of the better ones are on the web. Frank, well I have a few boxes of photos, going back prior the the K1000 too! Some are already on the web, so I'll pick on a few; Beginning with some I do like: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2829464 (me super, 50mm) subdued colours of the fading shop front and bright colours of the fruit http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2815949 (me super, 50mm) wasn't really sure how to compose that so tried to get some things on thirds http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1695498 (mx, 50mm) again, probably just trying to use thirds (it was some time ago) And some that I don't feel are particularly interesting: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3012317 (k1000, 50mm+2(?) extension tubes) Since there have been several snowflake photos recently I've included this frosted window. It has technical problems, I know, but I can probably fix them by using a tripod and more careful alignment to the window. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2437740 (mx, 50mm) another window, but rather warmer! and finally (since it is late) http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1654796 (mx and 50mm again) some steps I spent a long while trying to compose... Feel free to comment etc. Cheers, Eric.
Re: learning composition (was Re: PESO: Automaton)
Hi! Eric, you have very good sense of composition or very good eye or both. I agree with Paul, the only shot that is weaker is that of a windmill. This probably due to lots of empty blue spaces, etc... If you think that you have much to learn it only means that you are creative about your photography and that's normal, I believe. All I wish I could ask of you is that you keep posting so that me and some others could learn from you and simply enjoy your shots. Boris
RE: learning composition (was Re: PESO: Automaton)
I agree with Paul. To me compostition is about how to take the eyes of the spectatores for a I ride around/into the picture. So, often, it's about lines. It's also about light. The bright parts seem to catch the eyes first. Bright parts of a photograph need to be important(essential - or at least to lead the eyes to where the messages is. This is one of the reasons, that a portrait with a very bright background (passport photographs) are rarely very pleasing. The eyes want to wander away from the face and the essential part of the image. This can be mended in a way, by creating dark corners (oposite vignetting) - to create a bright, central part of the image. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 14. februar 2005 02:28 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: learning composition (was Re: PESO: Automaton) You have a very good sense of composition and frame. I find almost all of these quite excellent. The only exception would be the windmill, which appears somewhat awkward and disjointed to my eye. But the others are very good. The staircase is a great composition, so too the graffiti. The frosted tree is a very pretty shot. Nice work and welcome to the list. Paul Stenquist On Feb 13, 2005, at 7:13 PM, Eric Featherstone wrote: > At 04:26 am 12/02/2005, frank theriault wrote: >> Hi, Eric, >> >> Why do you think you need to learn more about composition? I bet you >> know more than you think. >> >> I think you should post pix to the list immediately, so we can all >> ponder your compositional skills (or lack thereof ), and tell you >> what you did wrong, and how you should have taken the photos . >> >> Seriously, I think it would be a good thing to post a few, just to see >> what other people think of your work. If you've been taking photos >> for 15 years, you must have a few... >> >> BTW, the advice that others gave you WRT books to read and things to >> do is all great, and you should do it. >> >> And, before I go, welcome to the list. >> >> If you've been lurking for some time, you likely already know this, >> but if you don't, remember: Don't believe anything I say. >> >> cheers, >> frank > > > Firstly, many thanks to William, Shel, Collin, Bob and Frank (did I > miss anyone?) for your welcome and advice, it's all noted and I'll try > out your suggestions. Well, some at least, I'll see how time goes ;-) > > Actually I have already tried one of the ideas, in part, using the MX > with 50mm only. I went out with a roll of XP2 trying to find patterns, > lines, textures etc. Not so many of the photos turned out to be > interesting but some of the better ones are on the web. > > Frank, well I have a few boxes of photos, going back prior the the > K1000 too! Some are already on the web, so I'll pick on a few; > Beginning with some I do like: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2829464 > (me super, 50mm) subdued colours of the fading shop front and bright > colours of the fruit > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2815949 > (me super, 50mm) wasn't really sure how to compose that so tried to > get some things on thirds > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1695498 > (mx, 50mm) again, probably just trying to use thirds (it was some time > ago) > > And some that I don't feel are particularly interesting: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3012317 > (k1000, 50mm+2(?) extension tubes) Since there have been several > snowflake photos recently I've included this frosted window. It has > technical problems, I know, but I can probably fix them by using a > tripod and more careful alignment to the window. > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2437740 > (mx, 50mm) another window, but rather warmer! > > and finally (since it is late) > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1654796 > (mx and 50mm again) some steps I spent a long while trying to > compose... > > Feel free to comment etc. > > Cheers, > Eric. > >
Re: learning composition (was Re: PESO: Automaton)
At 09:33 PM 13/02/2005, you wrote: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2815949 (me super, 50mm) wasn't really sure how to compose that so tried to get some things on thirds Eric, Like this one. Wendy Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: learning composition (was Re: PESO: Automaton)
- Original Message - From: "Eric Featherstone" Subject: learning composition (was Re: PESO: Automaton) http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2829464 No real subject, not enough detail in the shadows. Sorry, this one's a mess. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2815949 Nice simple composition. The asymmetry was a good idea. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1695498 Doesn't do much for me. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3012317 You may not think it is interesting, but I like this sort of stuff. This one is spoiled by the right side being out of focus. I think a healthy crop of the bottom right would be an inmprovement. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2437740 Not sharp, the highlights are blown, and there sin't enough shadow detail. This one would have worked better if you had done just about everything but the composition differently. More exposure to bring up the shadows, less development to tame the hightlights, and a smaller aperture to tighten up the lens. This type of picture is about technical proficiency, and your representation isn't up to it. Sorry to be so blunt. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1654796 You say you put some thought into this one, and it shows. There are some irritants in the scene itself. The plaque is quite ugly, and the dark thing near the upper left corner is annoying. At the same time, the picture needs the area above the steps, and the feeling of depth that is conveyed in the composition you chose. I think you were wise to bite the bullet and just include the plaque. Sometimes we just have to accept that the scene is what it is, we can't do anything about it, and so we should just try to present what is there as nicely as we can. You have done a good job on this one. Overall, the picture looks a little soft to me, and could really use a little more oomph. Were I printing this one, I would split contrast print it to get a little more out of the brick detail, Perhaps burn the street area and sidewalk with a #5 filter to dress it up a bit. This one just needs a bit of refinement, and perhaps a bit of revisionism with a cloning tool if you are taking a digital approach to the process (lose the plaque). Did you explore the area more? It looks like there are a plethora of photo opportunities there. William Robb
Re: learning composition (was Re: PESO: Automaton)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1654796 http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/1654796unmushed.jpg I took the liberty of giving this one a bit of a tweak. William Robb
Re: learning composition (was Re: PESO: Automaton)
http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/1654796unmushed.jpg It's over 300K. Sorry!! William Robb
