[SI] Vivid - comments

My comments on the "Vivid" Shoot in...


Walt Hanks* http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/38208137

The red tree certainly is vivid, esp. as it sticks out from the rest of
the somewhat dull shot. The same shot taken on a sunny day would have
been as vivid, if not more so, and would have punched up the background
trees a little more. The sidewalk in the foreground puts us in context
as does the rank of trees in a line behind/beside the main subject. The
white staircase, the 'curb' of the driveway area, the windows, etc.
really detract from the image. Further cropping (at composition time)
recommended. (Even cropping here on screen, isolates the tree against
the background, and eliminate the white at the top... closer to the
mandate). Suggest that if the shot had been for the mandate and shot
from the left and from a higher vantage with tighter framing... a better
shot would have resulted. Sharpening: you cannot use sharpening (per
your notes) to recover from poor focus. It may disguise the error
slightly, but that's all. Consider also a polarizer (esp. if the leaves
are wet) for colorful fall foliage on a dull day.


Colin D http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/38208159

Vivid as hell. On my screen the red of the birds head is washed
together, detail is lost... posterized? This might imply that the R
channel was saturated which seems unlikely. The green feather detail is
much nicer, followed by the blue. Composition is a bit centered and
uninteresting, even the infamous rule of thirds could have helped here.
A tighter crop if possible at shooting time to really isolate the bird
for 'vivid' and de-center... the leaves dominate too much. There is a
slight glint in the eye which helps give life to the little bugger.


Vic Mason http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/38208160

As a vivid shot it is certainly there... people _eat_ this? Well you
are what you eat, so you or your kids will be colorful and sweet, I
'spect. Like Colin's shot, very centered and while vivid doesn't say
much more. I'm surprised at how well the pale blue of the bowl works
for this shot, but suspect the darker bands help. The lighting is
pretty even all over ... maybe too even, making it look like a product
shot. The reflection on the far left (table) looks like a softbox, but
hard to tell. (Coupled with a similar reflection in the left of the
bowl that could be a softbox or window to the right.


Skip Middleton http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/38208161

Bordering on abstraction in this porthole shot. It seems a little over
the top in exposure as the whites are dead white on the walls, and so
are the highlights on the bars. This would have been a fine entry to
'Circles, Ellipses, Spheres'. Tempted to say "too centered" but due to
the simplicity of the subject, it's appropriate, I think. As to vivid,
yes, mostly so, but I also believe it to be overexposed and it would
have had a more saturated and vivid look if shot 1/2 stop or so quicker.
The use of a polarizer might have been worthwhile (reflections) to
keep the shot as simple as possible.

Tom Hudson http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/38208162

Magic light brings out the vivid in a subject that is often dull. With
the complementary blue sky framing the shot, the contrast is great. I
don't like the alignment of the lower spire with the top spire and I'd
suggest that either a higher vantage to bring the top of the lower spire
down below the ledge, or shoot at more of an angle (more to front or
rear of church) to the subject. A profile shot like this can work, but
for visuals, probably needs part of the shot to be horizontal to the
viewer (not shooting 'up' as in this one). All just a matter of taste,
probably.


Quercus http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/38208163

Vivid and contrasty it is, and the gaze of the shooter helps make the
shot complete. The inclusion of the background bar scene puts the whole
scene in context. Capture of vivid colors is great and the only
negative in that sense is the expanse of the felt and all its
imperfections. This is what the felt should look like, but v. the
mandate it is a bit of a distraction. I was going to say "rear curtain
sync" but the EXIF states no flash... so I'm puzzled about the blur on
the cue ball, but this might be where it came to rest and then slowly
rolled to the left ... (?). Cool shot.


Martin Djernaes http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/38208164

The composition is very well thought out with the faded table edge and
the subject vertical line well off center. The near neutral tone of the
image is slashed by the tomatoes (?). What doesn't work here however is
the lack of sharpness and detail of the tomatoes (whatever they are).
Judging by the table top, the focus plane was a little in front of the
subject. I get the impression of a badly scanned, then over cropped
shot. Great composition, vivid, but disappointing on subject detail.


Bowser http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/38208165

Oddly, the one thing that makes this 'vivid' shot work is the fellow in
the dark coat. Having said that, these colors are on the
gag-me-with-a-spoon side. The perspective lines generated by the
ceiling detail and walls is interesting. Lens perspective distortion
cuts this effect down in the frame of the entrance. (Hold the back of
the camera vertical, not tilted, to reduce this effect and crop the shot
later.) Also, given the symmetry of the composition, it is not cropped
enough on the left (or over cropped on the right).


Alan Browne* http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/38208166

How's that? Okay, I didn't shoot this during the mandate. There were a
few subjects to choose from, the better ones being outside (X-mas lights
and so on). It's also been bitterly cold here during most of the
mandate period, so screw that. This shot is a mess of fisherman's
lobster pot marker buoys in a tangle on a wharf on an island somewhere
off southwest Nova Scotia in July. A friend took us out on his boat for
the day and this was one of the stops. Light was pretty dull (for the
whole 2 weeks, damnit).


Al Denelsbeck http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/38208167

Composition is well considered with the oof background framing and
leading to the flower. The light on the background also helps in this
presentation. The flower is certainly vivid, and we get a range of
lighting on the subject. The obvious overall negatives in the shot are
the bunch of foreground leaves and the white ligth coming through. Not
sure if the leaves at least could have been pinned back with a clamp or
something. The white light is less easy to control... Consider cropping
the left and bottom of the image to make a more diagonal composition.


Bruce Murphy http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/38224242

Very nice shot. The gradation of blues and greens really focuses us on
the colors, though I'm not sure that much of it meets the term "vivid'.
I'm not crazy about the silhouetted leaves.

Jim Kramer http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/38224243

Vivid it is, but not the main subject. Too much flash. A tighter crop
wouldn't hurt.


Paul Bielec http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/38289410

One of the few shots where the vividness is mostly due to strong
contrast in subject and background. The color statement is strong, but
the composition is ordinary, the various bits of clutter not helping
(such as the lamp standards, fence, trees, etc.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

It's also been bitterly cold here during most of the
mandate period, so screw that.

I should get extra credit for that. My picture was taken on the top of a
hill in Chicoutimi.
It was at least -20C - the wind chill factor.
The morning I left Chicoutimi, it was -35C at 9am with no wind....

It's also been bitterly cold here during most of the
mandate period, so screw that.

I should get extra credit for that. My picture was taken on the top of a
hill in Chicoutimi.
It was at least -20C - the wind chill factor.
The morning I left Chicoutimi, it was -35C at 9am with no wind....

"Alan Browne-" wrote in message
...
My comments on the "Vivid" Shoot in...


Walt Hanks* http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/38208137

The red tree certainly is vivid, esp. as it sticks out from the rest of
the somewhat dull shot. The same shot taken on a sunny day would have
been as vivid, if not more so, and would have punched up the background
trees a little more. The sidewalk in the foreground puts us in context as
does the rank of trees in a line behind/beside the main subject. The
white staircase, the 'curb' of the driveway area, the windows, etc. really
detract from the image. Further cropping (at composition time)
recommended. (Even cropping here on screen, isolates the tree against the
background, and eliminate the white at the top... closer to the mandate).
Suggest that if the shot had been for the mandate and shot from the left
and from a higher vantage with tighter framing... a better shot would have
resulted. Sharpening: you cannot use sharpening (per your notes) to
recover from poor focus. It may disguise the error slightly, but that's
all. Consider also a polarizer (esp. if the leaves are wet) for colorful
fall foliage on a dull day.


It was a rainy, overcast day when I took the shot. By the time the sun came
out a week later, the leaves were gone. The sharpening was made necessary,
as I said, by the low shutter speed made necessary by the slow film and
dull, overcast day. Again, as I said in my submission, I submitted the
image because I was surprised by the vivid reds, especially given the
conditions.

Your comments regarding the cropping and composition would be valid if you
had any idea what else was around this tree. Believe me, this was the best
angle for the shot.

As far as the little dig about using an archive shot, well, too bad. It was
"archived" by all of a month. And since you also submitted an archive shot,
I find your dig a little hypocritical.

BTW, I did like your shot. But I would have liked to see a little more of
the surroundings to give the shot some context. That's just my preference
though. To each his own.

Walt

Paul Bielec wrote:
It's also been bitterly cold here during most of the
mandate period, so screw that.


I should get extra credit for that. My picture was taken on the top of a
hill in Chicoutimi.
It was at least -20C - the wind chill factor.
The morning I left Chicoutimi, it was -35C at 9am with no wind....

Chicoutimi is frigid in the summer, never mind the winter...

Cheers,
Alam


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Paul Bielec wrote:
It's also been bitterly cold here during most of the
mandate period, so screw that.


I should get extra credit for that. My picture was taken on the top of a
hill in Chicoutimi.
It was at least -20C - the wind chill factor.
The morning I left Chicoutimi, it was -35C at 9am with no wind....

Chicoutimi is frigid in the summer, never mind the winter...

Cheers,
Alam


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Walt Hanks wrote:


It was a rainy, overcast day when I took the shot. By the time the sun came
out a week later, the leaves were gone. The sharpening was made necessary,
as I said, by the low shutter speed made necessary by the slow film and
dull, overcast day. Again, as I said in my submission, I submitted the
image because I was surprised by the vivid reds, especially given the
conditions.

Your comments regarding the cropping and composition would be valid if you
had any idea what else was around this tree. Believe me, this was the best
angle for the shot.

Comments are always valid regardless of the true conditions and your
ability to control or not the scene. Comments are based on what is
presented for the mandate. For the scene you had, moving in closer (or
using a zoom) to cut out a lot of the distractions would have improved
it. Zat's all. Further, when the leaves are wet, a polarizer will
really bring out the color. Further a tripod will allow shooting at
lower speed. Further, sharpening cannot correct for blur errors (my
apologies for attributing it to focus, but sharppenning can't correct
for that either!).


As far as the little dig about using an archive shot, well, too bad. It was
"archived" by all of a month. And since you also submitted an archive shot,
I find your dig a little hypocritical.

Aren't we sensitive? The point about the mandate was really that if you
had taken a shot with the theme "vivid" in mind, it might have steered
you to other subjects and light. As it is, you were surprised yourself
at the punch in the shot after the fact.


BTW, I did like your shot. But I would have liked to see a little more of
the surroundings to give the shot some context. That's just my preference
though. To each his own.

Thank you. There is no rule that says a shot has to be shown in context
and a lot of the best photos you will see do their best to eliminate
everything but the subject itself. On the same roll I have shots that
are vivid patches of color amongst the grey dull day that it was and the
worn grey of a fishing outpost that rarely sees any fresh paint... this
one was in-your-face red, and it's too bad their wasn't more light. (Or
too bad I didn't shoot on time for the mandate, your pick).

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

On 06 Jan 2005 in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, Alan Browne- wrote:

so I'm puzzled about the blur on the cue ball, but this might be
where it came to rest and then slowly rolled to the left ...

It makes perfectly good sense. Shutter speed is listed at 1/15 second.
I don't know how fast a pool ball travels, but for the sake of argument,
let's say 6 miles per hour. Converting that to inches per second, it's
around 106. 1/15 of that is about 7 inches. Just eyeballing the image
indicates that it's traveled within about 50% of that.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe

"Alan Browne-" wrote in message
...
Walt Hanks wrote:
Comments are always valid regardless of the true conditions and your
ability to control or not the scene. Comments are based on what is
presented for the mandate. For the scene you had, moving in closer (or
using a zoom) to cut out a lot of the distractions would have improved it.
Zat's all.

One of the wonderful things about art is that there are no absolutes. You
would like it tighter. Fine. I disagree. And guess what? We're both
right (and wrong).


As far as the little dig about using an archive shot, well, too bad. It
was "archived" by all of a month. And since you also submitted an
archive shot, I find your dig a little hypocritical.

Aren't we sensitive?

Probably - too many drugs today. I just had my 9th surgery in less than 2
years (a cervical fusion). I get a little cranky when I am in this much
pain. Sorry about that.

Walt

BTW, the shot I would have liked to have been shown was rejected by Al,
since it was heavily digitally altered. Yet, we have people using digital
cameras and doing significant "playing" in photoshop. Makes me wonder just
how real "the rulz" are.

But enough of that. On to finding something solid in this Maryland mud bog
I live in.

Joe Makowiec wrote:
On 06 Jan 2005 in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, Alan Browne- wrote:


so I'm puzzled about the blur on the cue ball, but this might be
where it came to rest and then slowly rolled to the left ...


It makes perfectly good sense. Shutter speed is listed at 1/15 second.
I don't know how fast a pool ball travels, but for the sake of argument,
let's say 6 miles per hour. Converting that to inches per second, it's
around 106. 1/15 of that is about 7 inches. Just eyeballing the image
indicates that it's traveled within about 50% of that.

I'm aware of what causes blur, it was the more "solid" part of the ball
on the right that had me wondering if it was a front-curtain sync
artifact ... in the end the ball was 'there' (where more 'solid') longer
than it was on the left.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.