Photography - composition?

PhotoBanter.com (http://www.photobanter.com/index.php)

- 35mm Photo Equipment (http://www.photobanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - composition? (http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=64756)

I'm not sure I like this or not:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/edgehill-garden/Nursery/plants&PG=8&PIC=45

Comments?
I think perhaps it needs to be cropped square.

It is not sharp either at 1/100 sec at 200mm with closeup lens, f/7 ISO
800 in the shade. But I guess sharpness isn't the point here.

I'm also not sure what sort of framing/matting treatment to use, it
doesn't look good with the contemporary narrow black wood frame and
white matt that I have used before.

Paul Furman wrote:

Perhaps something like this:

http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/edgehill-garden/Nursery/plants/2006-05-29-closeups/framed

Better, the digital frames do nothing for your images IMHO..
--

Stacey

Paul Furman wrote:
I'm not sure I like this or not:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/edgehill-garden/Nursery/plants&PG=8&PIC=45

Comments?
I think perhaps it needs to be cropped square.

It is not sharp either at 1/100 sec at 200mm with closeup lens, f/7 ISO
800 in the shade. But I guess sharpness isn't the point here.

I'm also not sure what sort of framing/matting treatment to use, it
doesn't look good with the contemporary narrow black wood frame and
white matt that I have used before.

There are a few considerations you might think about. The first is the
shutter speed and focal length. As general rule of thumb... you need
1/125th per 100mm focal length on an SLR to compensate for mirror
shudder. this is of course highly subjective. If you have a very firm
tripod you can safely reduce this. If you had 6 cups of coffee and are
hand holding it you might need to double it! And then there are the
super humans who claim they can hand hold a 300mm lens at 1/60th!!.

Frames... Hmmm. Have you tried the Italian "Driveart" stuff? Myself I
prefer photographic edges rather than frames. but I agree with Stacey
that the frames you are using, do nothing for your images.

Douglas

Dmac wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

I'm not sure I like this or not:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/edgehill-garden/Nursery/plants&PG=8&PIC=45

Comments?
I think perhaps it needs to be cropped square.

It is not sharp either at 1/100 sec at 200mm with closeup lens, f/7
ISO 800 in the shade. But I guess sharpness isn't the point here.

I'm also not sure what sort of framing/matting treatment to use, it
doesn't look good with the contemporary narrow black wood frame and
white matt that I have used before.

There are a few considerations you might think about. The first is the
shutter speed and focal length. As general rule of thumb... you need
1/125th per 100mm focal length on an SLR to compensate for mirror
shudder. this is of course highly subjective. If you have a very firm
tripod you can safely reduce this. If you had 6 cups of coffee and are
hand holding it you might need to double it! And then there are the
super humans who claim they can hand hold a 300mm lens at 1/60th!!.

Yeah that one was probably shaky. Should work as a smaller print.

Frames... Hmmm. Have you tried the Italian "Driveart" stuff? Myself I
prefer photographic edges rather than frames.

How do you mean 'photographic edges'? Like black corner clips in a photo
album? Can you hang on a wall that way with no glass?

but I agree with Stacey
that the frames you are using, do nothing for your images.

:-(

Not as a web page, but hung on a wall. The black & white ones don't work
with this shot. Isn't this kind of framing common with a couple layers
of colored bevel cut matt board & a wood frame around that?

Paul Furman wrote in
. com:

I'm not sure I like this or not:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php...Area/San-Franc
isco/edgehill-garden/Nursery/plants&PG=8&PIC=45

Comments?
I think perhaps it needs to be cropped square.

It is not sharp either at 1/100 sec at 200mm with closeup lens, f/7
ISO 800 in the shade. But I guess sharpness isn't the point here.

I'm also not sure what sort of framing/matting treatment to use, it
doesn't look good with the contemporary narrow black wood frame and
white matt that I have used before.

My suggestion, both cropping and framing:

http://wading-in.net/Add/_DSC1632+3-edit.jpg

It also looks pretty good in greyscale (sans the matte). Perhaps
darkened a little in that case.

My approach to matting, if and when I do it, is often to find a
complementary color to some part of the image, but muted - this provides
accent but lets the natural colors of the image take control. In this
case, most of the colors were deep, so it seemed to call for a light
treatment.

I kind of like the approach, actually (the image itself). Most
people would have aimed for focus on the plant innards, but this way the
entire image became a bit surreal, and with very smooth gradients. I also
wonder what you would have produced with a misting bottle, both with and
without an off-camera flash to produce specular highlights.

- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Al Denelsbeck wrote:
Paul Furman wrote

I'm not sure I like this or not:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php...Area/San-Franc
isco/edgehill-garden/Nursery/plants&PG=8&PIC=45

Comments?
I think perhaps it needs to be cropped square.

It is not sharp either at 1/100 sec at 200mm with closeup lens, f/7
ISO 800 in the shade. But I guess sharpness isn't the point here.

I'm also not sure what sort of framing/matting treatment to use, it
doesn't look good with the contemporary narrow black wood frame and
white matt that I have used before.

My suggestion, both cropping and framing:
http://wading-in.net/Add/_DSC1632+3-edit.jpg

Yeah that helps, thanks. I was fixated on that print ratio.

It also looks pretty good in greyscale (sans the matte). Perhaps
darkened a little in that case.

How do you hang stuff without a matte? I mean, still framed or just dry
mounted to a black board?

My approach to matting, if and when I do it, is often to find a
complementary color to some part of the image, but muted - this provides
accent but lets the natural colors of the image take control. In this
case, most of the colors were deep, so it seemed to call for a light
treatment.

Thanks and that makes sense. My later attempt was a bunch of strong
colors & that probably got a bit rude.
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/edgehill-garden/Nursery/plants/2006-05-29-closeups/framed&PG=1&PIC=5

I kind of like the approach, actually (the image itself). Most
people would have aimed for focus on the plant innards, but this way the
entire image became a bit surreal, and with very smooth gradients. I also
wonder what you would have produced with a misting bottle, both with and
without an off-camera flash to produce specular highlights.

Thanks. Just a bunch of shots, trying different approaches fairly
quickly & pick the interesting ones later. It would be interesting to
set up the laptop as a mobile studio. That really only works indoors
because I can't see the screen well outdoors but I do have a tripod with
a rack to hold the laptop & a black cloth over it would complete the kit
(ha).

Paul Furman wrote:
Al Denelsbeck wrote:
Paul Furman wrote

I'm not sure I like this or not:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php...Area/San-Franc
isco/edgehill-garden/Nursery/plants&PG=8&PIC=45

Comments?
I think perhaps it needs to be cropped square.

It is not sharp either at 1/100 sec at 200mm with closeup lens,
f/7
ISO 800 in the shade. But I guess sharpness isn't the point here.

I'm also not sure what sort of framing/matting treatment to use,
it
doesn't look good with the contemporary narrow black wood frame
and
white matt that I have used before.

Aaron Bros used to sell a "frame" made of two sheets of plexiglass or
other plastic. The kit included two clear plastic clamps (top and
bottom) and a cardboard backing, as well as a cord that connected the
clamps once the photo, backing, and clamps were assembled.

The sheets were photo-size at 8x10, 11x14, 16x20. Hung on the wall by
the top clamp, the "frame" pretty much disappeared, so as someone
else mentioned, the picture was its own border, the wall was the
frame. If my description is not sufficient, I'll unhang one of mine
and make a photo or two.

--
Frank ess