[SI] CloseUp comments from Calvin Sambrook

Wow, what a great set of shots. I've only just had time to look at them
properly and a few are fantastic, here goes:

81605921_QENco-O_2.jpg: Stunning. For me this was the best photo by far.
The intense colours and the separation make the petals seem to be pasted
onto a background. The detail in the flower is great too. The dead centre,
symmetrical, composition adds impact, possibly because it's relatively
unusual. I could hang this on the wall - big.

Alan_Browne_Closeup2.jpg: I liked this a lot. The composition works and
having the centre droplets out of focus looks good. I like the level of
fine detail in the droplets and in the nozzles. The colours almost start to
hint at sepia tone which kind of adds something too.

Alan_Browne_Closeup3.jpg: Well this made me see something familiar in a new
way but it doesn't do it for me I'm afraid. Something about the out of
focus holder detracts too much from the detail in the paper roll, maybe if
it was in focus, maybe if it wasn't there...

Alan_Closeup1.jpg: Lots of detail but I just don't find this interesting as
a photo. Funny how when a photo isn't working for you everything about it
feels wrong, colours, composition, oh and is it upside down too? Sorry.

CLOSEUP_Tim_Conway_old.jpg: Normally flowers aren't my thing but this one
appeals to me. The water droplets really work and the fine detail on the
inner bits of the petals is something I've not noticed before. The photo
seems to me to have energy too, like it's thrusting to the left. Good one.

CLOSEUP_Troy_Piggins_Crazy_Eyes.jpg: Another stunner and the "original"
format shows it's technically perfect too. The complete loss of focus on
the background forces your eye to look at the fly although I'd maybe like
just a little more depth in order to get the hairs on the back in focus too
as I find them a little distracting being slightly soft. I know you don't
get much choice of colours in shots like this but the contrast between the
fly and the grey background really makes this shot for me.

CU_bowzer-1.jpg: The depth of field here helps to make this a little more
than just another pretty flower. On the other hand I do find it rather
distracting. On balance, for me, the visual clutter rather spoils it I'm
afraid. Perhaps there was another way to add context while making the
flower stand alone?

CU_bowzer-2.jpg: Wow. I want to take shots like that. The shot works as a
whole: colours, dynamic range, composition, texture and just the right
amount of motion blur in the flames. Fantastic.

CU_bowzer-3.jpg: Another one which made me look at detail I'd otherwise
miss. But that's all I'm afraid.

Close-Up-Calvin-Sambrook.jpg: Mine of course. I was trying to create a
moody shot with a feeling of depth, hence the soft lighting and grain
(although .jpg ate much of it). I also wanted to give the impression of
repetition into the distance, hence the relatively in-focus bits at the
back. Think urban sprawl.

Close-Up-by-JoshS.jpg: I admit I know the photographer - my son. He saw my
entry, poured scorn and asked me to enter this. I like this shot for it's
pastel colours and good use of depth of field but my eye keeps drifting away
from the in-focus flower in the centre to the ones either side which are
annoying because they're just out of focus.

CloseUp-Chrysanthemum-Cooper.jpg: I don't know what to make of this. The
colours are too close to each other to contrast, too different to match.
The detail in each object too, I find the difference in the type of detail
disturbing. In fact now that I've written that I realise the problem I have
with this image - I find it disturbs me. That probably makes it a good
image.
[By the way, what's all that grain doing there? ISO 1600? Unless the
photographer intended the grain to add something to the image then it really
should go].

CloseUp-Howard1-Cooper.jpg and CloseUp-Howard2-Cooper.jpg: The first image
(with the clock face) left me completely cold, I've seen too many test
images over the years. Its partner however is much more interesting. The
detail in there is fascinating. The background adds context but I just
wonder what this would look like on a plain background or with some real
tools.

Closeup_Bob_Flint_1_Copper.jpg: Another terrific image I wish I'd taken.
The lighting makes this shot, both in its colour and the crispness it adds.
It's clear that great care has gone into this apparently simple shot, I'd
love to know how it was lit?

Closeup_Bob_Flint_2_Gold_transistor.jpg: I love this one too, colour again
but also the way the center screw thread is framed by the uprights. The
texture adds a lot and those mashed up solder bits contrast the sharp lines
of the nut well. The only thing which spoils it for me is the funny plastic
bit in the front middle, without it this may well have been my favourite.

Closeup_Bob_Flint_3_tool.jpg: I like the texture in the metal but for me
the red plastic detracts too much.

Closeup_Paul-Furman_0034674.jpg: The delicate colour works for me here and
the dead centre composition would work well too but for the leaf on the
left.

Jim_Kramer_Close_Focus_1.jpg: I find the background just too distracting
here, although of course I know you don't get a choice with this sort of
shot. The bird is lost though which is a great shame.

Jim_Kramer_Close_Focus_2.jpg: Look at this in "original". Amazing. The
highlights in the wing really grab me and the sharp lighting really adds
power to this shot. The colour contrast works really well too.

Jim_Kramer_Close_Focus_3.jpg: Again the background confuses this shot.

closup1_Atheist_Chaplain.jpg: An interesting effect. The reflection adds
something to this but I'm left wondering if it could have added even more
somehow.
[Is it just my computer or is there a vertical line cutting through the left
part of the charm? and another a little to the right? Is that intentional
or some sort of artifact?]

closup2_Atheist_Chaplain.jpg and closup3_Atheist_Chaplain.jpg: These are
lost on me I'm afraid. Not my favourite subject matter at the best of times
and I can't make them fit the remit. Closeup3 is a very good composition
though, really draws the eye.

Helen_S_Bless_the_child.jpg: Powerful. Shocking, horrible, but powerful.
So much about this shot works for me, the use of B&W, the sunken eyes, the
depth of field giving just enough detail in the face, the hood with its
shadows, the stark contrast between he gun and the hand, even the way the
model has his head tilted forwards so he's looking up makes him look more
sinister.
[Just how nicely do you have to ask a boy with a gun to pose for a photo?]

CLOSEUP02_FRANKESS_0271.jpg: Cute but this doesn't push any of my buttons.
Sorry.

CLOSEUP_FRANKESS_30942.jpg: Something about this guys face says he's above
all of this photography stuff. Much as I don't really go for this sort of
photo I quite like this one. The detail in the fur and the nose adds a lot
but the reflection in the eye is a little distracting.


Please take these comments in the way they are intended, if I've been
negative about your photo it probably says more about my ability to see
what's before me.
Thanks everyone for sharing your work, it's great to see such good stuff.

"Calvin Sambrook" wrote in message
...
Wow, what a great set of shots. I've only just had time to look at them
properly and a few are fantastic, here goes:


CU_bowzer-1.jpg: The depth of field here helps to make this a little more
than just another pretty flower. On the other hand I do find it rather
distracting. On balance, for me, the visual clutter rather spoils it I'm
afraid. Perhaps there was another way to add context while making the
flower stand alone?

This is my gratuitous fisheye shot. I was trying to show a single flower in
a sea of flowers, but it just wasn't there. So I punted. I think your
comment is right on the money.


CU_bowzer-2.jpg: Wow. I want to take shots like that. The shot works as
a whole: colours, dynamic range, composition, texture and just the right
amount of motion blur in the flames. Fantastic.

Luckily, I was far enough away to prevent the flames from melting the lens
hood. Canon plastic is wicked expensive.


CU_bowzer-3.jpg: Another one which made me look at detail I'd otherwise
miss. But that's all I'm afraid.

Not something I'm proud of. But what you said is what I was going for when I
*scanned* the bill: show detail you might never see. I think my selection of
what part of the bill could have been better.

Thanks for taking the time to look at the gallery and comment. It's always
good to hear another opinion, especially when they actually looked at the
image and thought about them a bit.

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:15:43 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
wrote:

Wow, what a great set of shots. I've only just had time to look at them
properly and a few are fantastic, here goes:



Closeup_Bob_Flint_1_Copper.jpg: Another terrific image I wish I'd taken.
The lighting makes this shot, both in its colour and the crispness it adds.
It's clear that great care has gone into this apparently simple shot, I'd
love to know how it was lit?

I used 2 halogen reading lamps, plus the room lighting.

Closeup_Bob_Flint_2_Gold_transistor.jpg: I love this one too, colour again
but also the way the center screw thread is framed by the uprights. The
texture adds a lot and those mashed up solder bits contrast the sharp lines
of the nut well. The only thing which spoils it for me is the funny plastic
bit in the front middle, without it this may well have been my favourite.

The plastic part is the insolated guide pin. Maybe I could have added more of it
to show it's part of the transistor.

Closeup_Bob_Flint_3_tool.jpg: I like the texture in the metal but for me
the red plastic detracts too much.

I didn't like the plastic at first but thought it was a good contrast to the
hard steel.

Thanks for the comments!

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:15:43 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
wrote:

CloseUp-Howard1-Cooper.jpg and CloseUp-Howard2-Cooper.jpg: The first image
(with the clock face) left me completely cold, I've seen too many test
images over the years. Its partner however is much more interesting. The
detail in there is fascinating. The background adds context but I just
wonder what this would look like on a plain background or with some real
tools.

I sold a number of antique watches on eBay some time back and got
tired of shooting them on plain backgrounds. Here's a hunter-cased
Waltham Traveler I shot on an old skirt of my wife's:

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...s/TRAVELER.jpg

It's not a good idea to get "cute" with eBay ads, but for the Shoot-In
I could add the background. I used a page from a 1902 Sears catalog.
I don't have any real watchmaker's tools.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:15:43 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
wrote:

CloseUp-Howard1-Cooper.jpg and CloseUp-Howard2-Cooper.jpg: The first
image
(with the clock face) left me completely cold, I've seen too many test
images over the years. Its partner however is much more interesting. The
detail in there is fascinating. The background adds context but I just
wonder what this would look like on a plain background or with some real
tools.

I sold a number of antique watches on eBay some time back and got
tired of shooting them on plain backgrounds. Here's a hunter-cased
Waltham Traveler I shot on an old skirt of my wife's:

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...s/TRAVELER.jpg

It's not a good idea to get "cute" with eBay ads, but for the Shoot-In
I could add the background. I used a page from a 1902 Sears catalog.
I don't have any real watchmaker's tools.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Now that one really works for me, the background has interest but doesn't
distract from the subject. The choice of fabric seems to me to add "value"
to the watch, makes it look more expensive, more elegant somehow.
Really nice.

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:05:26 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:15:43 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
wrote:

CloseUp-Howard1-Cooper.jpg and CloseUp-Howard2-Cooper.jpg: The first
image
(with the clock face) left me completely cold, I've seen too many test
images over the years. Its partner however is much more interesting. The
detail in there is fascinating. The background adds context but I just
wonder what this would look like on a plain background or with some real
tools.

I sold a number of antique watches on eBay some time back and got
tired of shooting them on plain backgrounds. Here's a hunter-cased
Waltham Traveler I shot on an old skirt of my wife's:

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...s/TRAVELER.jpg

It's not a good idea to get "cute" with eBay ads, but for the Shoot-In
I could add the background. I used a page from a 1902 Sears catalog.
I don't have any real watchmaker's tools.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Now that one really works for me, the background has interest but doesn't
distract from the subject. The choice of fabric seems to me to add "value"
to the watch, makes it look more expensive, more elegant somehow.
Really nice.

Ta for that, but there were different objectives in taking the
photographs. The photograph of the Waltham was taken to sell the
Waltham on eBay; to present the product in the best way possible. The
photographs for the Shoot-In in were fun photographs where I could try
to be a bit creative and not lose anything if it didn't work.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:15:43 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
wrote:

CloseUp-Howard1-Cooper.jpg and CloseUp-Howard2-Cooper.jpg: The first
image
(with the clock face) left me completely cold, I've seen too many test
images over the years. Its partner however is much more interesting. The
detail in there is fascinating. The background adds context but I just
wonder what this would look like on a plain background or with some real
tools.

I sold a number of antique watches on eBay some time back and got
tired of shooting them on plain backgrounds. Here's a hunter-cased
Waltham Traveler I shot on an old skirt of my wife's:

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...s/TRAVELER.jpg

It's not a good idea to get "cute" with eBay ads, but for the Shoot-In
I could add the background. I used a page from a 1902 Sears catalog.
I don't have any real watchmaker's tools.

Are those cat hairs on your wife's skirt?