A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Surfing Novices



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 19th 17, 04:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital, alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Surfing Novices

On Sep 18, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/18/2017 7:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 18, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/18/2017 1:17 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 18, 2017, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Sep 18, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/18/2017 2:32 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 17, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

While you guys were arguing, I went out to take advantage of heavy surf.
While the surf was great, this is an imge of the ability of most of the
surfers I observed.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vcxbxh9oqliycro/20170917_surfing_5872.jpg?dl=0

That is a pretty good capture, and the D500 is doing what it does best.

That's why I got it.

As far as the surfer’s ability goes, he was out there wasn’t he?
Yep!.
There is a surfing competition coming up there next month. I was really
hoping to get some of the better surfers practicing.
There were few that were decent:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/q49tiud6ywe5d5m/20170917_surfing_5859.jpg?dl=0

Hmmm...
PN crop time.


However, there are some things which I find odd.
What is it with his right hand, especially the fingers?
Then with the shot taken right into the Sun/flare behind the board there is highlight clipping, his body is put into shadow deep enough to hide detail, and the skin tones seem somewhat reddish.

It was a foggy day. Had there been sun it would have been from my left.

In that case there is an issue with your post processing, because there is something odd about that fuzzy hot-spot to the right of the board.

I was facing SSW. You can check the exact position of the Sun on TPE.
The images were taken at Gilgo Beach, At about 10:00. I applied the ACR
fog remover, sharpened, and are you sitting, noise reduction. Here are
the RAW files to play with:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/x3snxtwr76t53xx/20170917_surfing_5872.NEF?dl=0

My processing and crop were different, with surfing shots, the actual surf/wave provides important context.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ipn74lo6fu2jb5g/PN_surfing_5872.jpg

Another wipeout:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/x75vd7gk9mc239h/20170917_surfing_5875.NEF?dl=0

My rendition of that one.
BTW: that might be the better shot of the two.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ipn74lo6fu2jb5g/PN_surfing_5872.jpg

Oops!!
Try this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a4v4akvj9e57vqi/PN_surfing_5875.jpg

Needs to be cropped. How much is always a judgement call.


It was cropped. In my judgement just enough. I also changed the aspect ratio.
I also dealt with the CA and fringing which was contributing to color noise, and I didn’t use a heavy hand on the ACR Dehaze.

Your severe crops do not always benefit the image. What would you have cropped in the case of these two shots to get close to your originally shared image?
The crop you made on your originally shared rendition of *5672* is too tight, and removes most of the wave, any interpretation of energy in that wave, and the context of the surfer’s action. Having the complete image with the context of the wave, and surfer tells the whole story, including the wave energy the surfer is dealing with. Crop to just the surfer, and the entire image suffers. I believe that is what Ron was trying to tell you.


For over sixty five years, I have cropped images.


There is nothing wrong with cropping an image. However, it should be done with planning, and restraint. I have been using cropping as a tool for a good percentage of my life with photography, from wet darkroom to digital. Sometimes a change in aspect ratio can be as effective, sometimes more so, than a bad crop.

i used to call it image mining.


Call it what you want, but cropping for the sake of cropping without planning, can lead to a ruined image.
Most of the cropping I have seen from you is when you are lacking reach from the lens in use, and you tend to over do it. Digital zoom is never satisfactory when over done.

I am not likely to stop now, unless the image doesn't call for it.


I wouldn’t expect you to stop, but consider the qualification you made above; “unless the image doesn’t call for it”, and apply it more often than you are known to do.

If I understand what you and Ron are saying about context, is
that more of the wave can show the context.


Exactly our point. Consider it as valid advice.

As non-duffer I am looking for the form of the surfer, as an abstraction. We are seeking a
different meaning from the same image.


Consider the action of the surfer, and the energy of the wave, which together can transcend your never ending search for finding abstraction out of everything.
What meaning is there to seek? The surfer caught in a decisive moment, is action frozen. It isn’t a navel contemplation.

If I cropped this image, it would convey a totally different feeling.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xjtalhb8vo60yrw/Sunflower%20Field.jpg?dl=0


Are you trying to argue my point? That image cropped would be awful.


BTW: I have been a surfer whenever the opportunity arrises for over 40 years, and I have been a more frequent, and enthusiastic Windsurfer since 1974.

Since I plan to do monochrome conversions, I am not overly concerned
about the color.

Monochrome might not be the best choice for surf shots, but who knows?

IMHO many sports shots can look more dynamic in monochrome. I am inot
intending my shots to sell location.


It always depends on the shot, how it is rendered, and presented.
Color is not always a tool to sell location, and as I said, B&W MIGHT not be the best choice for surfing shots.


--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #22  
Old September 19th 17, 01:49 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Surfing Novices

On 9/18/2017 11:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 18, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/18/2017 7:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 18, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/18/2017 1:17 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 18, 2017, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Sep 18, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/18/2017 2:32 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 17, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

While you guys were arguing, I went out to take advantage of heavy surf.
While the surf was great, this is an imge of the ability of most of the
surfers I observed.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vcxbxh9oqliycro/20170917_surfing_5872.jpg?dl=0

That is a pretty good capture, and the D500 is doing what it does best.

That's why I got it.

As far as the surfer’s ability goes, he was out there wasn’t he?
Yep!.
There is a surfing competition coming up there next month. I was really
hoping to get some of the better surfers practicing.
There were few that were decent:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/q49tiud6ywe5d5m/20170917_surfing_5859.jpg?dl=0

Hmmm...
PN crop time.


However, there are some things which I find odd.
What is it with his right hand, especially the fingers?
Then with the shot taken right into the Sun/flare behind the board there is highlight clipping, his body is put into shadow deep enough to hide detail, and the skin tones seem somewhat reddish.

It was a foggy day. Had there been sun it would have been from my left.

In that case there is an issue with your post processing, because there is something odd about that fuzzy hot-spot to the right of the board.

I was facing SSW. You can check the exact position of the Sun on TPE.
The images were taken at Gilgo Beach, At about 10:00. I applied the ACR
fog remover, sharpened, and are you sitting, noise reduction. Here are
the RAW files to play with:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/x3snxtwr76t53xx/20170917_surfing_5872.NEF?dl=0

My processing and crop were different, with surfing shots, the actual surf/wave provides important context.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ipn74lo6fu2jb5g/PN_surfing_5872.jpg

Another wipeout:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/x75vd7gk9mc239h/20170917_surfing_5875.NEF?dl=0

My rendition of that one.
BTW: that might be the better shot of the two.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ipn74lo6fu2jb5g/PN_surfing_5872.jpg

Oops!!
Try this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a4v4akvj9e57vqi/PN_surfing_5875.jpg

Needs to be cropped. How much is always a judgement call.

It was cropped. In my judgement just enough. I also changed the aspect ratio.
I also dealt with the CA and fringing which was contributing to color noise, and I didn’t use a heavy hand on the ACR Dehaze.

Your severe crops do not always benefit the image. What would you have cropped in the case of these two shots to get close to your originally shared image?
The crop you made on your originally shared rendition of *5672* is too tight, and removes most of the wave, any interpretation of energy in that wave, and the context of the surfer’s action. Having the complete image with the context of the wave, and surfer tells the whole story, including the wave energy the surfer is dealing with. Crop to just the surfer, and the entire image suffers. I believe that is what Ron was trying to tell you.


For over sixty five years, I have cropped images.


There is nothing wrong with cropping an image. However, it should be done with planning, and restraint. I have been using cropping as a tool for a good percentage of my life with photography, from wet darkroom to digital. Sometimes a change in aspect ratio can be as effective, sometimes more so, than a bad crop.

i used to call it image mining.


Call it what you want, but cropping for the sake of cropping without planning, can lead to a ruined image.
Most of the cropping I have seen from you is when you are lacking reach from the lens in use, and you tend to over do it. Digital zoom is never satisfactory when over done.

I am not likely to stop now, unless the image doesn't call for it.


I wouldn’t expect you to stop, but consider the qualification you made above; “unless the image doesn’t call for it”, and apply it more often than you are known to do.

If I understand what you and Ron are saying about context, is
that more of the wave can show the context.


Exactly our point. Consider it as valid advice.

As non-duffer I am looking for the form of the surfer, as an abstraction. We are seeking a
different meaning from the same image.


Consider the action of the surfer, and the energy of the wave, which together can transcend your never ending search for finding abstraction out of everything.
What meaning is there to seek? The surfer caught in a decisive moment, is action frozen. It isn’t a navel contemplation.

If I cropped this image, it would convey a totally different feeling.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xjtalhb8vo60yrw/Sunflower%20Field.jpg?dl=0


Are you trying to argue my point? That image cropped would be awful.


That is exactly my point. Some images need cropping, others don't. It
depends on what I am trying to convey.
I am showing that we really do not have different points on the subject
of cropping. That is: cropping is simply one technique for conveying the
concept in an image. In the case of surfers, I am conveying one
concept, and you prefer to convey a different concept. After our
discussion I think I understand the concept you and Ron like to convey.
That said, I like to convey a different concept in my images, than you.
That does not make me wrong, nor does it make you wrong. What would make
me wrong would be if I did not convey what I intended to convey.


--
PeterN
  #23  
Old September 20th 17, 12:55 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default Surfing Novices

On 9/19/2017 8:49 AM, PeterN wrote:

...totally gigantic snip...

That is exactly my point. Some images need cropping, others don't. It
depends on what I am trying to convey.
I am showing that we really do not have different points on the subject
of cropping. That is: cropping is simply one technique for conveying the
*concept in an image. In the case of surfers, I am conveying one
concept, and you prefer to convey a different concept. After our
discussion I think I understand the concept you and Ron like to convey.
That said, I like to convey a different concept in my images, than you.
That does not make me wrong, nor does it make you wrong. What would make
me wrong would be if I did not convey what I intended to convey.

I wrote a few responses, but discarded them because they

could have been construed as personally critical. Instead
I'll just this quick question:

Getting back to the beginning, what did you intend to convey
with your original post/photo?
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--
  #24  
Old September 20th 17, 02:54 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Surfing Novices

On 9/19/2017 7:55 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 9/19/2017 8:49 AM, PeterN wrote:

****** ...totally gigantic snip...

That is exactly my point. Some images need cropping, others don't. It
depends on what I am trying to convey.
I am showing that we really do not have different points on the
subject of cropping. That is: cropping is simply one technique for
conveying the **concept in an image. In the case of surfers, I am
conveying one concept, and you prefer to convey a different concept.
After our discussion I think I understand the concept you and Ron like
to convey. That said, I like to convey a different concept in my
images, than you. That does not make me wrong, nor does it make you
wrong. What would make me wrong would be if I did not convey what I
intended to convey.

I wrote a few responses, but discarded them because they

could have been construed as personally critical. Instead
I'll just this quick question:

Getting back to the beginning, what did you intend to convey
with your original post/photo?


I have a thick skin, and do not consider well intentioned comments about
my photography, as adverse personal criticism.
As can be gleaned from my original posting statement, I was protesting
against the long drift from photography.
As for what I intended to convey, it was simply a surfing wipe-out. The
Duck pointed out that I could have posted a better one, and you, I think
correctly, pointed out that my image was almost meaningless to a surfer.
I take my photography seriously,as it it the means by which I forget
about certain personal, and unpleasant realities. I do not, and will not
even try to sell my images, as that would be work. For the same reason,
I have refused several offers from stock publishers to allow my images
to be published. I do however, enter my images in competitions, and some
have done reasonably well in local and regional competitions. I recently
had some images accepted in an international PSA competition. When
making any image I usually try to please only my taste. I inquired about
surfers preferences, because I hope to shoot a surfing competition, and
donate the images to the organization running the competition. I well
appreciate that participants in various sports can have preferences
peculiar to that sport. Similarly, in my golfing days, when I was
shooting images of holes for a local golf magazine, in exchange for
free rounds of golf, showed the subtleties that made the holes desirable.


--
PeterN
  #25  
Old September 20th 17, 03:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Surfing Novices

On 9/19/2017 9:54 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 9/19/2017 7:55 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 9/19/2017 8:49 AM, PeterN wrote:

******* ...totally gigantic snip...

That is exactly my point. Some images need cropping, others don't. It
depends on what I am trying to convey.
I am showing that we really do not have different points on the
subject of cropping. That is: cropping is simply one technique for
conveying the **concept in an image. In the case of surfers, I am
conveying one concept, and you prefer to convey a different concept.
After our discussion I think I understand the concept you and Ron
like to convey. That said, I like to convey a different concept in my
images, than you. That does not make me wrong, nor does it make you
wrong. What would make me wrong would be if I did not convey what I
intended to convey.

I wrote a few responses, but discarded them because they

could have been construed as personally critical. Instead
I'll just this quick question:

Getting back to the beginning, what did you intend to convey
with your original post/photo?


I have a thick skin, and do not consider well intentioned comments about
my photography, as adverse personal criticism.
As can be gleaned from my original posting statement, I was protesting
against the long drift from photography.
As for what I intended to convey, it was simply a surfing wipe-out. The
Duck pointed out that I could have posted a better one, and you, I think
correctly, pointed out that my image was almost meaningless to a surfer.
I take my photography seriously,as it it the means by which I forget
about certain personal, and unpleasant realities. I do not, and will not
even try to sell my images, as that would be work. For the same reason,
I have refused several offers from stock publishers to allow my images
to be published. I do however, enter my images in competitions, and some
have done reasonably well in local and regional competitions. I recently
had some images accepted in an international PSA competition. When
making any image I usually try to please only my taste. I inquired about
surfers preferences, because I hope to shoot a surfing competition, and
donate the images to the organization running the competition. I well
appreciate that participants in various sports can have preferences
peculiar to that sport. Similarly, in my golfing days, when I was
shooting* images of holes for a local golf magazine, in exchange for
free rounds of golf, showed the subtleties that made the holes desirable.



BTW
Does this sequence contain the type of images surfers prefer?

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wd5d4s83qdf2w51/AADsDIPQuwPN-FDIQIcREOgwa?dl=0

--
PeterN
  #26  
Old September 20th 17, 03:38 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default Surfing Novices

On 9/19/2017 9:54 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 9/19/2017 7:55 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 9/19/2017 8:49 AM, PeterN wrote:

******* ...totally gigantic snip...

That is exactly my point. Some images need cropping, others don't. It
depends on what I am trying to convey.
I am showing that we really do not have different points on the
subject of cropping. That is: cropping is simply one technique for
conveying the **concept in an image. In the case of surfers, I am
conveying one concept, and you prefer to convey a different concept.
After our discussion I think I understand the concept you and Ron
like to convey. That said, I like to convey a different concept in my
images, than you. That does not make me wrong, nor does it make you
wrong. What would make me wrong would be if I did not convey what I
intended to convey.

I wrote a few responses, but discarded them because they

could have been construed as personally critical. Instead
I'll just this quick question:

Getting back to the beginning, what did you intend to convey
with your original post/photo?


I have a thick skin, and do not consider well intentioned comments about
my photography, as adverse personal criticism.
As can be gleaned from my original posting statement, I was protesting
against the long drift from photography.
As for what I intended to convey, it was simply a surfing wipe-out. The
Duck pointed out that I could have posted a better one, and you, I think
correctly, pointed out that my image was almost meaningless to a surfer.
I take my photography seriously,as it it the means by which I forget
about certain personal, and unpleasant realities. I do not, and will not
even try to sell my images, as that would be work. For the same reason,
I have refused several offers from stock publishers to allow my images
to be published. I do however, enter my images in competitions, and some
have done reasonably well in local and regional competitions. I recently
had some images accepted in an international PSA competition. When
making any image I usually try to please only my taste. I inquired about
surfers preferences, because I hope to shoot a surfing competition, and
donate the images to the organization running the competition. I well
appreciate that participants in various sports can have preferences
peculiar to that sport. Similarly, in my golfing days, when I was
shooting* images of holes for a local golf magazine, in exchange for
free rounds of golf, showed the subtleties that made the holes desirable.


Convey a surfing wipe-out to what end? The way it came across
to me was an intent to ridicule incompetence. Your subject title
said novice surfers, and later you said the surfers out there weren't
very good. Later you said you weren't a surfer, thus suggesting
you had no idea of the difficulty of any of what they were doing.

My suggestion is to know your audience. What's a great shot
to you may not be a great shot for that audience. I haven't looked
at a surfing magazine in years, nor do I know what the contest
folks might like. However, Duck and I seem to agree that some
aspect of context was missing from your presentation.
How you address that is clearly up to you.
I truly hope you capture many shots that the competition folks
like.
~~
PS:
Another way to gain context in a tight shot would be a slower
shutter speed, allowing some motion blur. However, you can't
add that in post and that would likely require quite a bit
experimentation. Not an easy task considering the unpredictability
of conditions.
~~
As always: YMMV
~
Again, good luck.
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--
  #27  
Old September 20th 17, 04:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital, alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Surfing Novices

On Sep 19, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/19/2017 9:54 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 9/19/2017 7:55 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 9/19/2017 8:49 AM, PeterN wrote:

...totally gigantic snip...

That is exactly my point. Some images need cropping, others don't. It
depends on what I am trying to convey.
I am showing that we really do not have different points on the
subject of cropping. That is: cropping is simply one technique for
conveying the concept in an image. In the case of surfers, I am
conveying one concept, and you prefer to convey a different concept.
After our discussion I think I understand the concept you and Ron
like to convey. That said, I like to convey a different concept in my
images, than you. That does not make me wrong, nor does it make you
wrong. What would make me wrong would be if I did not convey what I
intended to convey.

I wrote a few responses, but discarded them because they
could have been construed as personally critical. Instead
I'll just this quick question:

Getting back to the beginning, what did you intend to convey
with your original post/photo?


I have a thick skin, and do not consider well intentioned comments about
my photography, as adverse personal criticism.
As can be gleaned from my original posting statement, I was protesting
against the long drift from photography.
As for what I intended to convey, it was simply a surfing wipe-out. The
Duck pointed out that I could have posted a better one, and you, I think
correctly, pointed out that my image was almost meaningless to a surfer.
I take my photography seriously,as it it the means by which I forget
about certain personal, and unpleasant realities. I do not, and will not
even try to sell my images, as that would be work. For the same reason,
I have refused several offers from stock publishers to allow my images
to be published. I do however, enter my images in competitions, and some
have done reasonably well in local and regional competitions. I recently
had some images accepted in an international PSA competition. When
making any image I usually try to please only my taste. I inquired about
surfers preferences, because I hope to shoot a surfing competition, and
donate the images to the organization running the competition. I well
appreciate that participants in various sports can have preferences
peculiar to that sport. Similarly, in my golfing days, when I was
shooting images of holes for a local golf magazine, in exchange for
free rounds of golf, showed the subtleties that made the holes desirable.


BTW
Does this sequence contain the type of images surfers prefer?

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wd5d4s83qdf2w51/AADsDIPQuwPN-FDIQIcREOgwa?dl=0


The sequence not so much. #1, #2, & #5 would not be worthy of consideration. #3 is the most acceptable of the group, and #4 would be very good had the surfer been in focus, I would think of that as an AF-C tracking issue.

Consider shots such as these:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJccuOhXcAER0Dp.jpg
http://i.cdn-surfline.com/surfnews/images/2016/09_september/nsb-640/full/00-Smyrna_EricGeiselmanU79A4373Watts.jpg
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/sl-coldfusion-static-prod/surfnews/images/2011/08_august/padang_new/full/MICK-CURLEY_SURFLINE_RIPCURLCUP_5-8-2011_WALSHY-3539.jpg
or
http://tinyurl.com/yab6btue

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #28  
Old September 20th 17, 04:10 AM posted to rec.photo.digital, alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Surfing Novices

On Sep 19, 2017, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Sep 19, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/19/2017 9:54 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 9/19/2017 7:55 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 9/19/2017 8:49 AM, PeterN wrote:

...totally gigantic snip...

That is exactly my point. Some images need cropping, others don't. It
depends on what I am trying to convey.
I am showing that we really do not have different points on the
subject of cropping. That is: cropping is simply one technique for
conveying the concept in an image. In the case of surfers, I am
conveying one concept, and you prefer to convey a different concept.
After our discussion I think I understand the concept you and Ron
like to convey. That said, I like to convey a different concept in my
images, than you. That does not make me wrong, nor does it make you
wrong. What would make me wrong would be if I did not convey what I
intended to convey.

I wrote a few responses, but discarded them because they
could have been construed as personally critical. Instead
I'll just this quick question:

Getting back to the beginning, what did you intend to convey
with your original post/photo?

I have a thick skin, and do not consider well intentioned comments about
my photography, as adverse personal criticism.
As can be gleaned from my original posting statement, I was protesting
against the long drift from photography.
As for what I intended to convey, it was simply a surfing wipe-out. The
Duck pointed out that I could have posted a better one, and you, I think
correctly, pointed out that my image was almost meaningless to a surfer.
I take my photography seriously,as it it the means by which I forget
about certain personal, and unpleasant realities. I do not, and will not
even try to sell my images, as that would be work. For the same reason,
I have refused several offers from stock publishers to allow my images
to be published. I do however, enter my images in competitions, and some
have done reasonably well in local and regional competitions. I recently
had some images accepted in an international PSA competition. When
making any image I usually try to please only my taste. I inquired about
surfers preferences, because I hope to shoot a surfing competition, and
donate the images to the organization running the competition. I well
appreciate that participants in various sports can have preferences
peculiar to that sport. Similarly, in my golfing days, when I was
shooting images of holes for a local golf magazine, in exchange for
free rounds of golf, showed the subtleties that made the holes desirable.


BTW
Does this sequence contain the type of images surfers prefer?

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wd5d4s83qdf2w51/AADsDIPQuwPN-FDIQIcREOgwa?dl=0


The sequence not so much. #1, #2, & #5 would not be worthy of consideration. #3 is the most acceptable of the group, and #4 would be very good had the surfer been in focus, I would think of that as an AF-C tracking issue.

Consider shots such as these:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJccuOhXcAER0Dp.jpg
http://i.cdn-surfline.com/surfnews/images/2016/09_september/nsb-640/full/00-Smyrna_EricGeiselmanU79A4373Watts.jpg
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/sl-coldfusion-static-prod/surfnews/images/2011/08_august/padang_new/full/MICK-CURLEY_SURFLINE_RIPCURLCUP_5-8-2011_WALSHY-3539.jpg
or
http://tinyurl.com/yab6btue


....or this, which seems related to your first two shots.
http://nysea.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/nysea-balaram-stack-F-stop-Surfline.png

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #29  
Old September 20th 17, 04:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Surfing Novices

On 9/19/2017 10:38 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 9/19/2017 9:54 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 9/19/2017 7:55 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 9/19/2017 8:49 AM, PeterN wrote:

******* ...totally gigantic snip...

That is exactly my point. Some images need cropping, others don't.
It depends on what I am trying to convey.
I am showing that we really do not have different points on the
subject of cropping. That is: cropping is simply one technique for
conveying the **concept in an image. In the case of surfers, I am
conveying one concept, and you prefer to convey a different concept.
After our discussion I think I understand the concept you and Ron
like to convey. That said, I like to convey a different concept in
my images, than you. That does not make me wrong, nor does it make
you wrong. What would make me wrong would be if I did not convey
what I intended to convey.

I wrote a few responses, but discarded them because they
could have been construed as personally critical. Instead
I'll just this quick question:

Getting back to the beginning, what did you intend to convey
with your original post/photo?


I have a thick skin, and do not consider well intentioned comments
about my photography, as adverse personal criticism.
As can be gleaned from my original posting statement, I was protesting
against the long drift from photography.
As for what I intended to convey, it was simply a surfing wipe-out.
The Duck pointed out that I could have posted a better one, and you, I
think correctly, pointed out that my image was almost meaningless to a
surfer. I take my photography seriously,as it it the means by which I
forget about certain personal, and unpleasant realities. I do not, and
will not even try to sell my images, as that would be work. For the
same reason, I have refused several offers from stock publishers to
allow my images to be published. I do however, enter my images in
competitions, and some have done reasonably well in local and regional
competitions. I recently had some images accepted in an international
PSA competition. When making any image I usually try to please only my
taste. I inquired about surfers preferences, because I hope to shoot a
surfing competition, and donate the images to the organization running
the competition. I well appreciate that participants in various sports
can have preferences peculiar to that sport. Similarly, in my golfing
days, when I was shooting* images of holes for a local golf magazine,
in exchange for free rounds of golf, showed the subtleties that made
the holes desirable.


Convey a surfing wipe-out to what end? The way it came across
to me was an intent to ridicule incompetence. Your subject title
said novice surfers, and later you said the surfers out there weren't
very good. Later you said you weren't a surfer, thus suggesting
you had no idea of the difficulty of any of what they were doing.


I should add that perhaps I was expressing my disappointment that with
such good wave action, I did not see a higher level of surfers.
Although I have never surfed in my life, that was not the first time I
have photographed surfers. To my eye the balance and poise I have seen
on prior occasions was missing.


My suggestion is to know your audience. What's a great shot
to you may not be a great shot for that audience. I haven't looked
at a surfing magazine in years, nor do I know what the contest
folks might like. However, Duck and I seem to agree that some
aspect of context was missing from your presentation.
How you address that is clearly up to you.
I truly hope you capture many shots that the competition folks
like.


Thank you, I intend to try.

~~
PS:
Another way to gain context in a tight shot would be a slower
shutter speed, allowing some motion blur. However, you can't
add that in post and that would likely require quite a bit
experimentation. Not an easy task considering the unpredictability
of conditions.


True, but when hand holding a long lens, while standing in the water, I
was not thinking water blur. Had I brought a tripod, I might have acted
differently.
BTW you can add motion blur in post. That takes more skill than I possess.

~~
As always: YMMV
~
Again, good luck.



--
PeterN
  #30  
Old September 20th 17, 04:40 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Surfing Novices

On 9/19/2017 11:10 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 19, 2017, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Sep 19, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 9/19/2017 9:54 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 9/19/2017 7:55 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 9/19/2017 8:49 AM, PeterN wrote:

...totally gigantic snip...

That is exactly my point. Some images need cropping, others don't. It
depends on what I am trying to convey.
I am showing that we really do not have different points on the
subject of cropping. That is: cropping is simply one technique for
conveying the concept in an image. In the case of surfers, I am
conveying one concept, and you prefer to convey a different concept.
After our discussion I think I understand the concept you and Ron
like to convey. That said, I like to convey a different concept in my
images, than you. That does not make me wrong, nor does it make you
wrong. What would make me wrong would be if I did not convey what I
intended to convey.

I wrote a few responses, but discarded them because they
could have been construed as personally critical. Instead
I'll just this quick question:

Getting back to the beginning, what did you intend to convey
with your original post/photo?

I have a thick skin, and do not consider well intentioned comments about
my photography, as adverse personal criticism.
As can be gleaned from my original posting statement, I was protesting
against the long drift from photography.
As for what I intended to convey, it was simply a surfing wipe-out. The
Duck pointed out that I could have posted a better one, and you, I think
correctly, pointed out that my image was almost meaningless to a surfer.
I take my photography seriously,as it it the means by which I forget
about certain personal, and unpleasant realities. I do not, and will not
even try to sell my images, as that would be work. For the same reason,
I have refused several offers from stock publishers to allow my images
to be published. I do however, enter my images in competitions, and some
have done reasonably well in local and regional competitions. I recently
had some images accepted in an international PSA competition. When
making any image I usually try to please only my taste. I inquired about
surfers preferences, because I hope to shoot a surfing competition, and
donate the images to the organization running the competition. I well
appreciate that participants in various sports can have preferences
peculiar to that sport. Similarly, in my golfing days, when I was
shooting images of holes for a local golf magazine, in exchange for
free rounds of golf, showed the subtleties that made the holes desirable.

BTW
Does this sequence contain the type of images surfers prefer?

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wd5d4s83qdf2w51/AADsDIPQuwPN-FDIQIcREOgwa?dl=0


The sequence not so much. #1, #2, & #5 would not be worthy of consideration. #3 is the most acceptable of the group, and #4 would be very good had the surfer been in focus, I would think of that as an AF-C tracking issue.

Consider shots such as these:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJccuOhXcAER0Dp.jpg
http://i.cdn-surfline.com/surfnews/images/2016/09_september/nsb-640/full/00-Smyrna_EricGeiselmanU79A4373Watts.jpg
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/sl-coldfusion-static-prod/surfnews/images/2011/08_august/padang_new/full/MICK-CURLEY_SURFLINE_RIPCURLCUP_5-8-2011_WALSHY-3539.jpg
or
http://tinyurl.com/yab6btue


...or this, which seems related to your first two shots.
http://nysea.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/nysea-balaram-stack-F-stop-Surfline.png


Most are really nice images. Where did yu take them?

--
PeterN
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Surfing with a motorcycle Sandman Digital Photography 2 August 4th 15 02:59 PM
EVF's for novices Irwell Digital Photography 1 August 11th 10 04:15 AM
EVF's for novices bobwilliams Digital Photography 2 August 10th 10 05:36 AM
Surfing pics DD 35mm Photo Equipment 7 July 4th 06 06:30 AM
Website for DSLR/SLR Amateurs & Novices Sharp Shooter Digital SLR Cameras 2 June 7th 05 09:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.