[SI] Comments on Asymmetry

wrote:


Paul Campbell
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/76286081
Lovely old-world b&w. Good subject, but I think the cropping could be
better - both sides look a bit truncated, but I would definitely like
the bottom of the leftmost chairleg to be there. I also think the
shadows look a bit flat - I'd like to see a bit more contrast (ie
blacker blacks) but not at the expense of blocking the shadows more
than they already are. Having said all that, I'm crap at b&w, so
don't listen to me...


Mark, many thanks for your comments, they are much appreciated. I agree
with you about the left chair. The print that I made includes it, it
just got cropped when I scanned. I made a couple of prints with more
contrast and I found that the background bricks looked really harsh and
distracted from what I wanted to be the focus of the image, the chairs.
I'll try some dodging of the shadow areas and see if that helps with
the blocking. Again, thank you for your suggestions.

Cheers,

Paul

Mardon wrote:
Paul wrote:

Mardon
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/76214914
Great photo, and as a Canuck, this one hurts my heart. The crisp
lines and bold colours work really well against the drab background.
In fact, I was surprised at how true the colours are, since typically,
a flag this damaged physically is also rather weathered. Mardon,
might you gently suggest to the owner that it's time for a
replacement? And of course, if it's your flag.
Very striking, couldn't have hit the mandate better, and makes me
homesick.

Thnak you very much for commeting on the photos, Paul Great job! I'm glad
you are Canadian and understood the aysymetery. I figured it might not be
immediately obvious to everyone but I thought people would eventually
figure it out. It's not my flag. I would not fly it like that. I suspect
that the red is still a deep colour becuase the flag hasn't been flying
very long. Here in Newfoundland, few people even attempt to fly flags in
the winter because of the wind. They can easily get torn up in just a few
days. That's probably what happened to this one. I have no idea who the
people are who are flying this flag. I'd be reluctant to stop and suggest
they replace it. My suspicision is that they will replace it themselves
before too long. If it looked like an old weathered flag that had been
unattended for a long period of time, I might feel differently. I doubt
that this one has been like this too long.

I thought I remembered an earlier comment from you that you were in
Newfoundland, and when I saw this I wondered if if was just from a bad
windstorm on the Rock. You're probably right, as it doesn't really look
old at all, and the edge appears freshly torn.

On Mar 28, 1:21 pm, Paul wrote:
As this mandate was my suggestion, I thought I might venture into the
world of comments. Not only am I a newbie photo-wise, I also don't know
what I'm talking about, so please take my remarks as such.

This doesn't make your opinions any less valid. Thanks for the
mandate and the comments. Most of us don't bite... hard.. :-)

Jim Kramer http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/76252171
It took me a while to come around on this one, and that's entirely due
to the restrictions I had in my head. As I mentioned, this was my
mandate, so I had a preconception of how to solve it even as I was
submitting it to the moderator, and that framework was of something
man-made, or otherwise arranged, or lacking, or missing, or _actively_
put out of balance. So when I saw this shot, my first instinct was that
it largely missed the mandate, and while it was beautiful aesthetically,
I wasn't impressed. But of course it does fit asymmetry, doesn't it?
First, nature is inherently asymmetric, and second, the image captures
many different elements: varying curves, length, lighting, etc. I like
the way that the background leaves are largely vertical while the
foreground curls out of frame. This photo affirms why I lurked around
Shootin for quite a while before I submitted any shots of my own: it's
always interesting to see how someone's execution differs from your own
ideas. Well done, and thank you.

It is important to think outside the box every so often just so you
don't lose your perspective.

Many thanks to all who played along this round, and to Mr. Kramer for
moderating Shootin.
Cheers,
Paul

You are, of course, quite welcome

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:48:51 -0700, mark.thomas.7 wrote:


Douglas MacDonald
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/76214361 Perhaps a studio version
would have been better - ummm, was this an archive shot? I am left
puzzled by the choices - why so much d-o-f and why the burnt-out sky? -
you used fill flash, so you could have controlled the ambient lighting..
A bit lower viewpoint would have removed the plastic chairs from view,
and those plastic cups could have been shifted. So I must differ from
Ken here - I don't think you were at all restricted by this being a
'found scene' - it's a set shot that could have been adjusted/improved
easily. Also needs a slight contrast tweak to give it decent blacks.
With a little attention to detail, it could have been good.


HTH

HTH? is that a signature?

I have some remote (faint) hope that a 10 point explanation of this image
may help some people discover that successful photography is about
emotional pictures, not absolute technical perfection.

If photography were measurable, as some would try to have it, mini-lab
prints would all be perfect! Some people like my style, some criticize it
for lacking measurable perfection... Trying to please those who would
take the art of composure into a measurable science is fraught with
danger at the best of times.

1. The scene was at a wedding shoot taken after the mandate was announced.

2. It's not therefore an archive shot.

3. Who in their right mind would buy this much booze to set up a studio
shot for shootin? You are not trying to use shootin for your personal
vendetta towards me are you?

4. Depth of field... Damned if you use it, damned if you don't. I'm not
sure now but I think this was taken with an 11 -19 lens... DOF is a way
of life with one of these. If it by chance was taken with a 24 -70, it
would have been at 24mm so similar DOF would have reigned. So now having
the scene in focus is a point of criticism, is it?

5. No flash was used. EV 7.5 difference between the sky and the shadow
behind the bar guaranteed no amount of flash was going to produce a shot
with shadow and sky detail. Surely you are not suggesting I should have
sacrificed detail in the bottles just to have a blue sky?

6. "Burnt Out sky" is one of those instant choices all event
photographers have to make... Expose for the majority of the scene and
sacrifice less important objects or destroy the whole picture for a bit
of blue.

7. Removing anything or re-arranging anything would have invoked the
wrath of the person who was so very carefully arranging everything for
their client's guests... The caterer.

8. Contrast is subjective. My personal style is low (linear) contrast
Photographs with as close to natural colours as a camera can produce. I
know for many this is "relic from the past" stuff but for this part of my
business, (making wedding photographs) it is a style I will not soon
change.

9. The shot was not "set". It was found at a reception with paid bar
staff and paid caterers who wheeled in their own furniture, fittings and
booze. Everything was arranged in whatever way they chose in about 15
minutes. Although this picture does not show it, the scene was utterly
chaotic. I snapped this off in the minutes before the bride to entered.

10. I choose to take this picture specifically for a shootin submission
after reading the mandate. I took it based on my interpretation of the
mandate whilst I was at work. It was very much an opportunistic shot.

Had I intended it for an exhibition or competition entry, I would have
sought to re-arrange some 'props' and bracketed the shot for later
combining of exposures to bring the "burnt sky" into the same contrast
range as the rest of the scene... Which of course would have produced a
photo that was more "Photoshop" than Photograph with the risk of
rejection by judges.

Douglas

"Paul" wrote:

I made a couple of prints with more contrast and I found that
the background bricks looked really harsh and distracted from
what I wanted to be the focus of the image, the chairs.

Possibly multiple filter printing? Painting with filters might be an option
here.

I'll try some dodging of the shadow areas and see if that helps
with the blocking.

These are some pretty complex shadows. Masking with an overlay negative
might help, but is a fairly exacting task with 35mm.

Ken

"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
news
OK, in celebration of my just now completed replacement of a 49 Kbps
dial-up
modem Internet connection (with an effective throughput of about half
that)
by an 8-16 Mbps oh-my-god connection, I'll do a few comments this week...

(Damn these photos come up fast!)

And wait until you see what that connection can do for www.badjojo.com.

Bowser
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/76214983
Ahh, Bowser. You did it to me again. This isn't the first time I had an
idea similar to one of yours, then you did it better. There are a pair of
sheds out in my neck of the woods that I thought might work. They were
asymmetric by texture and not by color. (You know, that b&w thing of
mine...) But I think your color differentiation works better. And the
reason is that everything in this picture is non-asymmetric except for the
two colors. (Is there some slight pincushion distortion at work here?)
Fortunately I was unable to find the time for a photo session and thus be
embarrassed by your submission. My compliments to the spouse. Wives do
work in mysterious ways, don't they?


Mysterious, my ass. That damned door cost me almost $700. And she laughed
it off. Due to the damned door, I had to delay my purchase of a Kawasaki
1600 Nomad for a month or so.

Yes, there is some slight distortion here, and if I wasn't such a lazy slug,
I would have opened the lens distortion filter and fixed it. The only good
news here is that the ass-end of the Pilot survived without a scratch.
Somehow...

Seriously, I didn't think of this shot until the last minute, and managed to
get the shot and mail it hours before leaving for San Diego. Which is a very
nice city.

wrote in message
oups.com...
((sorry if this turns into a double post - small PC glitch))

Nice work, Ken - it's great to see someone put so much effort into
their critiques...

Bowser
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/76214983
Almost a masterpiece, and the only reason it didn't win for me was
that it was in your back/front yard... (O; Sorry, but these sort of
images require that you have traveled to some exotic/weird remote
location, like the Maldives or sumpin... I would have tweaked the
contrast a bit to remove most of the bits of detail in the dark
windows and to thereby concentrate more on the subject only, plus I
would have dragged out the perspective tools to get it *absolutely*
straight and pure - it is very close, but the very slight bend along
the top, and the slight slant at bottom are made a little too obvious
by the close (but good and necessary, imo) crop.


Wierd? Obviously, you've never been to my little town. I live in the Twin
Peaks of northeastern Massachusetts. I didn't have a lot of time to mess
with the photo before leaving for the west coast, to I just let it fly as
is. I guess the 28-105 zoom isn't optically perfect. Damn.

"Paul" wrote in message
...
As this mandate was my suggestion, I thought I might venture into the
world of comments. Not only am I a newbie photo-wise, I also don’t know
what I’m talking about, so please take my remarks as such.


Bowser
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/76214983
Really well done. Bang on for asymmetry. I think the tight crop works
very well for this shot, no muss, no fuss. Simple, clean. Maybe you
should tell your wife that due to all of your Shootin accolades over this
image, you’ve decided to leave the doors as they are. I mean, when you
start to use your home for your art, that shows real conviction!


And if you think the garage is art, wait 'till you see the kitchen sink.

Thanks!

On Mar 29, 6:50 am, D-Mac wrote:

HTH? is that a signature?
No, it stands for Hope This Helps.

I have some remote (faint) hope that a 10 point explanation of this image
may help some people discover that successful photography is about
emotional pictures, not absolute technical perfection.
Excellent. I found your other review a little .. er.. terse..

If photography were measurable, as some would try to have it, mini-lab
prints would all be perfect! Some people like my style, some criticize it
for lacking measurable perfection... Trying to please those who would
take the art of composure into a measurable science is fraught with
danger at the best of times.

Totally agreed (yes, it's really me - as I always say, if you post
good content, then I'll be the first to agree!)

1. The scene was at a wedding shoot taken after the mandate was announced.
Fair enough - I believe you. There have been some recent postings
which were not labelled as archive shots when I have sen them before -
and I believe it is important for the SI's integrity that this is
continued. I have no problem with archivers, and I post them myself
sometimes.. I apologise for raising the issue.

2. It's not therefore an archive shot.
Fine. Excellent. (O;

3. Who in their right mind would buy this much booze to set up a studio
shot for shootin? You are not trying to use shootin for your personal
vendetta towards me are you?
I'm not sure why this leads to an inference of a vendetta.. I
criticised other shots here in a very similar way. And don't you have
parties? Or if you want props like these, why not pay a quick visit
to a pub/reception venue, offering to help with the aftermath.. Where
has all the inventiveness gone, nowadays..?

4. Depth of field... Damned if you use it, damned if you don't. I'm not
sure now but I think this was taken with an 11 -19 lens...
Why not leave the exif with the photos, and then you will know for
sure..

DOF is a way
of life with one of these. If it by chance was taken with a 24 -70, it
would have been at 24mm so similar DOF would have reigned. So now having
the scene in focus is a point of criticism, is it?
Well, *yes* - if there is too much distracting background. I'll drag
out a similar lens and situation when I have time and see what I can
come up with. A couple of comments - adding a polariser, maybe even
an ND, would have allowed you to open up more, assuming this wasn't at
maximum aperture already (surely not?). And if you are at a wedding,
surely you have access to a reasonably fast prime?

If you have a reasonable range of equipment and skill, anything is
possible with a bit of care. I think striving for improvement is a
good thing.

5. No flash was used. EV 7.5 difference between the sky and the shadow
behind the bar guaranteed no amount of flash was going to produce a shot
with shadow and sky detail. Surely you are not suggesting I should have
sacrificed detail in the bottles just to have a blue sky?
So what are those very bright, very flash-like specular reflections in
the image? I'm sorry Doug, but it looks VERY much like flash to me.
For the more technoical amongst us, if you look at the rightmost wine
bottles carefully, you will note that the highlight is just a little
to the left of the centreline of the bottle. But if you then look at
the glasses to the left, the highlight is to the *right* of their
centrelines. That means (simple physics) that the intense light
source was quite close to the camera lens. Hmmm. If you claim
otherwise, ok, I will not argue further and leave it to the audience
to decide..

Also, a simple flash (even bounced off a card, which I suspect this
was) would easily give you enough light at that range to balance with
a daylight exposure. The ev numbers are irrelevant *unless* you do
proper distance calculations.

6. "Burnt Out sky" is one of those instant choices all event
photographers have to make... Expose for the majority of the scene and
sacrifice less important objects or destroy the whole picture for a bit
of blue.
Sometimes, but not if you have other light sources, polarisers, etc.

7. Removing anything or re-arranging anything would have invoked the
wrath of the person who was so very carefully arranging everything for
their client's guests... The caterer.
So moving two stacks of plastic cups (and replacing them afterwards),
and simply lowering your camera (no rearranging) to exclude the
chairs, would have 'invoked wrath'? Had you done other things to
upset them beforehand, perhaps? (O:

8. Contrast is subjective. My personal style is low (linear) contrast
Photographs with as close to natural colours as a camera can produce. I
know for many this is "relic from the past" stuff but for this part of my
business, (making wedding photographs) it is a style I will not soon
change.
That's fine. I can post my taste, just as you can post yours.

9. The shot was not "set". It was found at a reception with paid bar
staff and paid caterers who wheeled in their own furniture, fittings and
booze. Everything was arranged in whatever way they chose in about 15
minutes. Although this picture does not show it, the scene was utterly
chaotic. I snapped this off in the minutes before the bride to entered.

I know you dispute my experience, but I never found the reception part
of wedding photography all that rushed or chaotic. But again, I will
take your word for it - you were clearly under great pressure!

10. I choose to take this picture specifically for a shootin submission
after reading the mandate. I took it based on my interpretation of the
mandate whilst I was at work. It was very much an opportunistic shot.
Had I intended it for an exhibition or competition entry, I would have
sought to re-arrange some 'props' and bracketed the shot for later
combining of exposures to bring the "burnt sky" into the same contrast
range as the rest of the scene... Which of course would have produced a
photo that was more "Photoshop" than Photograph with the risk of
rejection by judges.

Hah! Wait'll you see my effort for Silhouette!!! It'll be your turn
then.

On Mar 29, 9:33 am, "Kinon O'Cann" wrote:
that it was in your back/front yard... (O; Sorry, but these sort of
images require that you have traveled to some exotic/weird remote
location, like the Maldives or sumpin...
.....

Wierd? Obviously, you've never been to my little town. I live in the Twin
Peaks of northeastern Massachusetts.
Oh, alright then, you get equal first!!

I didn't have a lot of time to mess
with the photo before leaving for the west coast, to I just let it fly as
is. I guess the 28-105 zoom isn't optically perfect. Damn.

OK, ok, I already gave in.. But I still think.... (O;