[SI] Twisted - Mardon's Comments

Hi all,

Even though I've been one of the few people to submit a complete
list of comments for the past couple of shoot-ins, I feel reticent
every time I sit down to critique SI submissions. I'm only a simple
amateur and I have no credentials for critiquing photos; unless you
count the fact that I know what I like personally. I also know that
sometimes what I like or dislike personally is not necessarily in
tune with what I know makes a good photograph. For example, I'm
not particularly fond of soft-focus shots and foreground motion
blur. I know that a 2 second shot of a waterfall can often create
a great image that is loved by many people. I just don't happen to
be one of them. I also know that a bit of softness in a portrait
photo is often considered desirable but I prefer sharp images, even
in portraits. Anyway, this is just a long-winded caveat to
reinforce the idea that my criteria for judging what makes a
"good" photo may or may not correspond with what is actually a good
photo. One final note before I start my comments… I wish more
people would comment on the SI submissions. I've found that
reading the comments is almost more fun than finding a shot to fill
the mandate.

Mark Lauter
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462393

Right on with the mandate! That's a great colour blue in the sky.
I think that I'd like to have seen the plane a little larger but
then the shot would have been too narrow to meet the mandate. I
guess that's a Catch-22. If there had been no caption, I would
not have known that this was a "flat spin", with the smoke
descending vertically. At fist glance, it looks like a wind-blown
jet con-trail. Obviously it's smoke to mark the aerial acrobatics
but I can't seem to shake the con-trail feel even though I now know
the difference.

Frank Sheffield
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462395
Another great fit to the mandate. You must have a great eye to
notice these things! Per the comments in my intro (above) I would
like to see the wooden knot look a bit sharper. The colours are
also a bit bland for me. Maybe that's because spring is only now
arriving where I live and I'm looking forward to the arrival of
colourful spring flowers.

Doug Payne
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462397
It looks like everyone is making a direct hit on the mandate this
time. I like the knots and weathered look of the post. The rust
on the wire also adds to the image. I'm curious if you moved the
wire at all to center the knot in the centre of that wire triangle?
As in Frank's shot, I find the colours depressing but I've already
admitted that this is probably my 'problem' and not yours.

Bowser
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59486245
Very nice. I'd like to see your "dust bunny" but apparently Al was
paid-off! I like this shot a lot. The washed-out sky is my
only criticism. I wonder if a polarizing filter would have helped?
If not, maybe choosing a day with a darker blue sky would have
helped. I guess I'm belabouring this point because I love the rich
colours in the flowers and feel they deserve a complimentary sky.

Tom Gabriel
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462402
This is probably my favorite of the group. I think Bret's shot
will probably be preferred over this by most people but I like this
one. There's always something to be said for simplicity (in life
as well as photography I might add!) I'd like more sharpness in
the wire ends but I've already admitted my personal preference in
this regard.

Ken Nadvornick
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462405
Having just praised the merits of simplicity, what can I say about
this shot. It certainly meets the twisted mandate but it's too
congested for my liking. I almost feel claustrophobic looking at
it. It's one of those images that I suspect is actually a very
professional looking shot, even though it's just too congested to
appeal to my tastes.

Paul Furman
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462407
I like it! The white trunks against the green foliage is great.
In fairness though, I'll have to admit a personal bias in favour of
upward-looking shots of trees. I've always enjoyed this kind of
angle on trees. The old fish-eye looking up in a forest is a life-
long favorite of mine. The more I look at this image, the more I
like it.

Jim Kramer
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462409
I used to maintain a 40 acre hobby farm, so my fond memories of
that experience may make it difficult to not over-value this image.
The springs are neat. I find myself looking at all the image
details. The cultivator teeth are on the ground but the wheels are
up. The implement was red but has a green brace so I wonder, was
it an International or a John Deere implement, etc.
Photographically, I think that the image may have been better if
the spring had occupied a bit more of the frame. I'm not sure what
it is but the framing 'feels' not quite right.

Al Denelsbeck
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462411
I admire your commitment to have set up this soap bottle vortex
especially for SI. I suspect that it must have been very hard to
get this working and photograph it too. Somehow, I don't think it
comes off too well. I guess it must be reflections from the bottle
that make it look like posturization. I know it's NOT a processing
artifact but the image looks like it shows jpeg banding and that
kind of interferes with my enjoyment of the vortex.

Bret Douglas
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462413
A great photo! Was this in an aquarium or were you diving? I'd
like to know the story behind this one. It seems pointless for me
to try and add any comments. Anyone who looks at this can see how
good it is.

Mardon wrote:
Hi all,

Even though I've been one of the few people to submit a complete
list of comments for the past couple of shoot-ins, I feel reticent
every time I sit down to critique SI submissions. I'm only a simple
amateur and I have no credentials for critiquing photos; unless you
count the fact that I know what I like personally. I also know that
sometimes what I like or dislike personally is not necessarily in
tune with what I know makes a good photograph. For example, I'm
not particularly fond of soft-focus shots and foreground motion
blur. I know that a 2 second shot of a waterfall can often create
a great image that is loved by many people. I just don't happen to
be one of them. I also know that a bit of softness in a portrait
photo is often considered desirable but I prefer sharp images, even
in portraits. Anyway, this is just a long-winded caveat to
reinforce the idea that my criteria for judging what makes a
"good" photo may or may not correspond with what is actually a good
photo. One final note before I start my comments... I wish more
people would comment on the SI submissions. I've found that
reading the comments is almost more fun than finding a shot to fill
the mandate.

That's OK. It really doesn't matter what you like or dislike, for most
people it is merely the fact that someone commented on their picture.
I appreciate that you took the time to comment on the images, harsh as
you may be :-) You are allowed to have opinions and express them.

Jim Kramer
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462409
I used to maintain a 40 acre hobby farm, so my fond memories of
that experience may make it difficult to not over-value this image.
The springs are neat. I find myself looking at all the image
details. The cultivator teeth are on the ground but the wheels are
up. The implement was red but has a green brace so I wonder, was
it an International or a John Deere implement, etc.
Photographically, I think that the image may have been better if
the spring had occupied a bit more of the frame. I'm not sure what
it is but the framing 'feels' not quite right.

It was an International, but it had clearly seen much better days. I
liked the springs too, especially with "twisted" in mind.

I had the 15mm fisheye on and I was as close as I could get and
maintain the springs in focus. I liked the additional curve the lens
imparted and the contrast of the next, centered spring that was bent
the opposite direction.

The lighting was too harsh and there was no color in the sky,
remarkably bright for such a hazy day. I intentionally shot the
horizon off level and that may be some of the framing feeling wrong?

Some other twisted possibilities (including a centered spring) at
http://si.jlkramer.net/twisted.htm

Thanks for commenting,
Jim

"JimKramer" wrote:

That's OK. It really doesn't matter what you like or dislike,
for most people it is merely the fact that someone commented on
their picture. I appreciate that you took the time to comment on
the images, harsh as you may be :-) You are allowed to have
opinions and express them.

Thanks. (I think!) lol

It was an International, but it had clearly seen much better
days. I liked the springs too, especially with "twisted" in
mind.

I had the 15mm fisheye on and I was as close as I could get and
maintain the springs in focus. I liked the additional curve the
lens imparted and the contrast of the next, centered spring that
was bent the opposite direction.

The lighting was too harsh and there was no color in the sky,
remarkably bright for such a hazy day. I intentionally shot the
horizon off level and that may be some of the framing feeling
wrong?

Some other twisted possibilities (including a centered spring)
at http://si.jlkramer.net/twisted.htm

Thanks for commenting,
Jim

I probably shouldn't admit this but I never realized you'd used a
fisheye until you mentioned it. I thought you'd used an ultra-wide
rectilinear lens; that the implement shed in the background was a
Quonset Hut with a curved roof and that the spring was designed with
a curve for some functional reason. Wow! Maybe that's why the image
had a "strange feel" for me. Since you knew it was a fisheye, it
probably never occurred to you that anyone would not know that when
they looked at you photo. If I published a photo taken with a
fisheye, I'd certainly assume that everyone else who looked at it
would know that. I guess I need to re-think that assumption.

Mardon wrote:

Hi all,

Even though...

Thanks Mardon, for commenting on them all. I intended to last time but
it's a lot of work and hard not to be meanly critical but I think we
shouldn't worry about that if the comments are sincere. Great approach
this time to point out what you like & dislike, as I recall last time
you were glowingly kind to everyone and that's nice but can be awfully
hard work g.

Mardon Erbland - lightbulbs
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462384

Do I understand correctly that those light bulbs were turned on? Amazing
demonstration of HDR and a really nice clean catchy image. Well done!

PS there was a discussion of 16 bit in the dslr group and I think the
conclusion was that 16 bit is very rarely helpful.


Mark Lauter - airplane acrobatics
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462393

Right on with the mandate! ...

Well, it meets the mandate and is executed properly but not interesting
enough to stand on it's own, honestly. It would be good for a magazine
article or something like that though in the proper context.


Frank Sheffield - ivy on fence
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462395
...You must have a great eye to
notice these things! Per the comments in my intro (above) I would
like to see the wooden knot look a bit sharper. The colours are
also a bit bland for me...

Such a dry sense of humor Frank.
My bias is that I despise ivy so..


Doug Payne - rusty wire and fence
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462397
...I like the knots and weathered look of the post. The rust
on the wire also adds to the image...

I like the subject matter & don't mind the blah colors. It is sharp and
interesting lighting/exposure but the composition doesn't do anything
for me and the background is particularly distracting. A DSLR with a
fast lens would have given more charm.

Bowser - spiral topiary in DC
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59486245
Very nice... I like this shot a lot. The washed-out sky is my
only criticism... I love the rich
colours in the flowers and feel they deserve a complimentary sky.

Agreed. I threw this in irfanview, maxed the saturation & lowered the
gamma for a much more satisfying disneyland look. I think a little less
good taste is called for in this shot.

Tom Gabriel - chain link fence detail
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462402
This is probably my favorite of the group. ...
There's always something to be said for simplicity
...I'd like more sharpness in the wire ends...

Sorry this is just too plain.

Ken Nadvornick - looks like tangled dead vines
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462405
...too congested for my liking.
I almost feel claustrophobic looking at
it. It's one of those images that I suspect is actually a very
professional looking shot, even though it's just too congested to
appeal to my tastes.

I like this sort of complex texture. I would actually hang something
like this on my wall. I would crop the blurred part in the lower left.

Paul Furman - freaky tree
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462407
I like it! The white trunks against the green foliage is great.

Glad you enjoyed. I'm a big tree person. Always have been. Looking
again, I could have been more careful with masking the layers. There was
very extreme hazy flare in the original. This shot is a bit too strange
and drab to print & hang but it's interesting. I really should trade in
my Sigma wide zoom for a Nikon since I just love shooting wide angle. I
had no idea it would be so appealing.

Jim Kramer - rusty farm springs
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462409
...The springs are neat. I find myself looking at all the image
details. The cultivator teeth are on the ground but the wheels are
up...
Photographically, I think that the image may have been better if
the spring had occupied a bit more of the frame. I'm not sure what
it is but the framing 'feels' not quite right.

Fish-eye is perfect for this. Fascinating subject. I loved finding more
springs in the background. Tilting the horizon was a good move. It is a
shame about the white sky, I think better colors and lighting could have
made this a great shot. Making it B&W would help some but I'd really
like to see it with better colors. It has a nutty country bumpkin feel
but also is the sort of subject that probably only men would appreciate
g and is gear-headed enough some might not even notice the nuttiness.
I think more color would make it less serious.

Al Denelsbeck - vortex in a bottle
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462411
I admire your commitment to have set up this soap bottle vortex
especially for SI. I suspect that it must have been very hard to
get this working and photograph it too. Somehow, I don't think it
comes off too well. I guess it must be reflections from the bottle
that make it look like posturization...

Agreed. It looks good as a thumbnail though. Great experiment and very
worthwhile in the context of photographers discussing among ourselves
but the 'dirty glass' looks pretty bad. Thanks for submitting it
anyways. Fascinating.


Bret Douglas jellyfish in aquarium
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462413
A great photo! Was this in an aquarium or were you diving? I'd
like to know the story behind this one. It seems pointless for me
to try and add any comments. Anyone who looks at this can see how
good it is.

Yeah, it's well done but everything looks so gorgeous in a fancy
aquarium like that so I think this was too easy for Bret. I want to see
you struggle man!

Paul Furman wrote:

Mardon Erbland - lightbulbs
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462384

Do I understand correctly that those light bulbs were turned on?
Amazing demonstration of HDR and a really nice clean catchy
image. Well done!

PS there was a discussion of 16 bit in the dslr group and I
think the conclusion was that 16 bit is very rarely helpful.

Thanks! Yes, the only illumination for this shot was the 2 compact
fluorescent lamps seen in the picture. They had 'warmed up' and were
at full brightness when I took the photos used to make this composite
HDR image. I had placed the lights in front of a black velvet
background to prevent any light spillage to items that would have
otherwise become visible in the background. An HDR image is actually
32 bits. PS CS2 can handle 32 bit images. 16 bits would not be
sufficient to handle the dynamic range in this scene. Once I had
created the 32 bit HDR composite image from the individual photos, I
tone-mapped the 32 HDR image into the 8 bit JPEG that is seen here.
It takes a very special (and super expensive) display to view HDR
images directly (see http://www.brightsidetech.com/)

BTW, It was interesting to compare your reaction on the photos to
mine. We agreed on some and differed on many. Isn't variety
wonderful!

Mardon wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:

Mardon Erbland - lightbulbs
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462384

Amazing demonstration of HDR and a really nice clean catchy
image. Well done!

PS there was a discussion of 16 bit in the dslr group and I
think the conclusion was that 16 bit is very rarely helpful.

An HDR image is actually
32 bits. PS CS2 can handle 32 bit images. 16 bits would not be
sufficient to handle the dynamic range in this scene. Once I had
created the 32 bit HDR composite image from the individual photos, I
tone-mapped the 32 HDR image into the 8 bit JPEG that is seen here.
It takes a very special (and super expensive) display to view HDR
images directly (see http://www.brightsidetech.com/)

Very interesting. I did not know that. Is it only the HDR 'plugin' that
works in 32 bit? I'm surprised this didn't come up in that discussion I
mentioned. I'm going to copy this in a separate cross-posted thread to
solicit comments from that gang.

BTW, It was interesting to compare your reaction on the photos to
mine. We agreed on some and differed on many. Isn't variety
wonderful!

Yes, so people shouldn't feel too bad to get a critical review. Much of
it is personal taste. It's the nature of art for people to react
differently.

Paul Furman wrote:

Very interesting. I did not know that. Is it only the HDR
'plugin' that works in 32 bit? I'm surprised this didn't come up
in that discussion I mentioned. I'm going to copy this in a
separate cross-posted thread to solicit comments from that gang.

CS2 has built-in support for 32 bit images. You do not require a
"plug-in", although there are companies that make them. A 32 bit HDR
image contains luminance levels that far exceed the luminance data
that can be stored in 8 or 16 bits-per-channel image files. CS2 lets
you make exposure and contrast corrections so that converting a 32
bits-per-channel HDR image to 8 or 16 bits per channel results in an
image with the dynamic range (tonal range) you want. (Tonal
mapping.)

CS2 also has an item under "File--Automate--Merge to HDR" that
takes multiple 8 or 16-bit images and merges them into a single 32
bit HDR image.

I'd guess that no one raised the issue of 32 bit images in your other
discussion because no cameras (as far as I know) yet support 32 bit
images. My take on this whole question of 8-bits versus more is that
most current display hardware can't handle more than 8 bits. I guess
the argument some people make is that you don't need more bits than
what you can ultimately display. That's not true in my opinion. The
extra bits provide lots more opportunity to manipulate and edit the
image without losing colour resolution in the final 8-bit image. For
example, there is no way that anyone could photograph two fully lit
lightbulbs as a single 8-bit image and still maintain rich detail in
both the highlights and shadows. That requires more bits to record
the full luminance range and eventually for manipulation and tone
mapping. This is despite the fact that the final result is still
displayed as 8 bits.

Mardon wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:

I'm going to copy this in a
separate cross-posted thread to solicit comments from that gang.

CS2 has built-in support for 32 bit images...

OK this conversation is over in that other thread now.

Subject: "32 bit photoshop CS2?"

On 01/05/2006 9:28 AM, Mardon wrote:

Doug Payne
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/59462397
It looks like everyone is making a direct hit on the mandate this
time. I like the knots and weathered look of the post. The rust
on the wire also adds to the image. I'm curious if you moved the
wire at all to center the knot in the centre of that wire triangle?
As in Frank's shot, I find the colours depressing but I've already
admitted that this is probably my 'problem' and not yours.

Thanks for the comments. I didn't change anything; the wire is in the
picture as it was when I found it on the post. The colours are
depressing because it was shot in Ontario (Canada, not California :-) in
mid-April. There was still snow on the ground in spots, and the spring
flowers were pretty much non-existent, except for the odd spring beauty
and a few dandelions. I just returned from a canoe trip a bit north of
here this past week, and there was *still* snow on the ground in spots.
I revisited the area this afternoon where the last submission was shot,
and the colours were somewhat less bland; watch for my next submission
to see if you find it less depressing.

Doug Payne wrote:

Thanks for the comments. I didn't change anything; the wire is
in the picture as it was when I found it on the post. The
colours are depressing because it was shot in Ontario (Canada,
not California :-) in mid-April. There was still snow on the
ground in spots, and the spring flowers were pretty much
non-existent, except for the odd spring beauty and a few
dandelions. I just returned from a canoe trip a bit north of
here this past week, and there was *still* snow on the ground in
spots. I revisited the area this afternoon where the last
submission was shot, and the colours were somewhat less bland;
watch for my next submission to see if you find it less
depressing.

Hi Doug,

I live in Logy Bay, Newfoundland, and I was 'depressed' because
our Spring arrives about 6 weeks after Spring arrives in Waterloo.
My wife and I were out for a walk tonight on the Quidi Vidi Lake
Trail and we were remarking about how there are still several
places beside the trail where the snow has not yet melted. Now
THAT's depressing.