[SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!

On 9/16/2011 1:22 AM, otter wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:38 pm, wrote:
On 9/14/2011 11:10 PM, otter wrote:

On Sep 14, 2:31 pm, wrote:

Otter:
Eye in Sky; Nice. The evening light is just right to demonstrate the
time and yet have the foreground structures identifiable, without having
the stereotypical "golden" or "red" sunset.

I like the overall composition. Just to pic a nit, the boat light in the
river is a mild distraction. I would have toned it down a smidge.

The light on the boat, and the light on the horizon "the eye in the
sky" are the whole point of the picture, at least in my mind. I was
going for some kind of metaphysical statement. But I can see how you
might think they are just a boat and a football field.

They certainly contribute a lot to your composition. For my taste the
river light is just too bright. However, if you as the maker feel
otherwise, that is the ultimate decision.


Thanks for the input, I might try to tone the boat light down a little
to see what it looks like. But in my mind it is not a distraction.
It is meant to grab your attention. I had this weird idea of the boat
representing a prodigal son coming home, or a seeker searching for
enlightenment. And I do realize that is just all inside my head. :-)

Not at all a weird idea. We have too many mundane images. Go with your
imagination. Please don't slavishly follow anyone's comments. Just
consider them and adopt pieces to the extent they are compatible with
you taste. I try to make my images mine.
I think that art photography is both an art and a craft.
On the art side: What I learn from others, is primarily inspiration.
On the craft side, technique.

--
Peter

On 9/15/2011 3:04 PM, Elliott Roper wrote:
snip
What is it with water and sunset/rise? No-fail subject or what?

Which brings me to your "SI_dusk_Otter_eye_in_sky.jpg". I loved the way
the boat's bow wave connected the flat distant stuff with the warm
light coming from the houses on the bottom right. The illusion of depth
in that area was so different from the rest of the picture that it kept
drawing my eyes back for another peep. I didn't like the purple sky
much, it turned it into a theatre set backdrop. I tried brushing a heap
of desaturation into the sky area. It certainly hurt less, but the
picture looked a lot less magical.
Mine was going to be this old one:-
http://gallery.me.com/elliott_roper#100080/_MG_8298_2&bgcolor=black
but when I went to Google to remind myself how to spell "Merzouga"
there were about 1000 almost identical pictures and I chickened out of
offering the SI the ultimate tourist camel cliché.


Gotta yell at you for that. It is a nice image. Who cares if it was done
thousands of times before, it's the first time you tried it. If it is a
cliche, build on the beginning and take it to the next level.

--
Peter

In article
,
otter wrote:

snip
Mine was going to be this old one:-
http://gallery.me.com/elliott_roper#100080/_MG_8298_2&bgcolor=black
but when I went to Google to remind myself how to spell "Merzouga"
there were about 1000 almost identical pictures and I chickened out of
offering the SI the ultimate tourist camel clich .

Nonsense. That's a great picture. I liked a lot of the other
pictures on that site, too. Must have been a great trip!

Thanks. Yep. It was a blast. But my passengers were gibbering wrecks by
the time I got 'em out of the high Atlas. We rented a clapped out old
Clio in Marrakech and followed our noses. Morocco is delightful.
Especially out in the boonies.

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:40:58 -0400, Bowser wrote:

The Dusk or Dawn gallery is posted, and it's a very healthy gallery,
too. Some nice shots in there. Take a look, and offer a friendly
critique, if you dare.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/duskdawn

Pithy comments:

Bowser1 & Bowser2: Both excellent shots, but how they fit the Dusk to
Dawn mandate baffles me. Bowser3 fits the mandate, but is a rather
trite view of a much-photographed setting.

Irwell1 & Irwell2 smack of that "I've got to photograph something, but
I don't see anything all that interesting" situation we all face at
times. Irwell3, though, shows a good eye for finding something
interesting where others would miss it. I wonder about cropping it to
a non-standard ratio to eliminate the top-heavy look.

Eric's "Dawn" is pretty, incorporates natural framing, close-enough to
mandate, and well composed. Why doesn't it interest me, though? Too
post-cardy, I suppose. "Dusk" misses on too many counts. "Dusk and
Dawn" is competent, but without any real interest.

PeteA's photos are gems of rich color. Really good shots. There's
something lacking in composition, but Pete can't really move around
those ships and pose them. I'd like to see Pete try finding a more
solitary subject that can be part of, but not dominant to, the scene
and see what he can do with it.

Bob and Martha Coe's efforts this month are not quite up to what I
expect from them. Each make me wonder why that shot was taken.

Tim Conway presents an interesting post-processing rendition in
"Duskdawn", but the main feature of the shot is spoiled by the
filled-in arches of the bridge. I do like the rowboat. That, from
another angle, could have been the better shot with this processing.

Paul Furman's sax player could have been my favorite for this group
because it has 1) people, 2) black and white, and, 3)a street scene.
You have to get all the person in, though, when the person is your
main subject. Can't truncate them unless you're doing a straight
head-and-shoulders.

I would have cropped that portrait just at the right edge of the lamp
post. That somewhat horse-like shape to the left of the lamp post is
distracting because you don't know what it is. Two pedestrians on
close examination, but you don't want the viewer doing close
examination of ancillary aspects of the photo.

I guess there's something to be said about DanP's two submissions, but
after looking at all of the photos this month I just have to admit
that I'm not a person who likes photographs of sky and clouds.
Interesting colors, but photos without meat...to me.

Otter's image is interesting, but he could take some lessons from
PeteA in color. The colors here are just too wrong for me. I like
the boat and tiny little moon, though.

Image size has been discussed in other threads. With Otter's, I have
to scroll up and down to see the entire image. (Same with PeteA's) I
didn't even see the houses in the lower right the first few times I
opened this image. Sized smaller, though, and the effect would be
lost. A square crop of the lower part of the image would work to be
viewable on-screen.

If I gotta pick a sky photo, the Duck's "Dusk 01" is the best so far.
Still, a whole lot of pretty nothing. "Dusk 02" doesn't work for me
because fog or mist or whatever it is just doesn't work unless it's
lifting in parts. Otherwise, it just obscures.

"Dusk 03" is very well done. Good color, good composition.

I don't understand Alan's "Fairplay" view. Awful lot of uninteresting
foreground. Interesting color in the red shot.

The "Grand Electric Palace of Variety" by Peter Chant suffers for
being a "dusk or dawn" shot. To make the mandate, it's a wide shot.
The better scene would have been something closer. He didn't miss on
the second shot. That's a great shot!

"Lighthouse Morning", PeterN, is interesting, but why did you chop the
top and include so much at the bottom? It's a photo within a photo.
There's a man taking a photograph of a woman out on the deck.

"Sausage and Peppers" was probably fun to do, but ... you know.
"Sunset Lovers" is more interesting.

No dogs this month, but pick of the litter was Peter Chant's
"Sheppard's Electric".

Some really strong color effects this month from Bowser's mushroom to
Pete's ship scenes to Duck's waves on the beach.

Two people who didn't take a photograph good enough to submit: Tony
Cooper and Bruce.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:40:58 -0400, Bowser wrote:

The Dusk or Dawn gallery is posted, and it's a very healthy gallery,
too. Some nice shots in there. Take a look, and offer a friendly
critique, if you dare.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/duskdawn

Pithy comments:

y that shot was taken.

Tim Conway presents an interesting post-processing rendition in
"Duskdawn", but the main feature of the shot is spoiled by the
filled-in arches of the bridge. I do like the rowboat. That, from
another angle, could have been the better shot with this processing.

Actually that was done in camera on print film with an "85" filter. The
only post processing was a little color correction to match the print I
copied and some sharpening.
Thanks for your comments.

On 2011-09-16 11:51:19 +0100, PeterN said:

On 9/16/2011 1:22 AM, otter wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:38 pm, wrote:
On 9/14/2011 11:10 PM, otter wrote:

On Sep 14, 2:31 pm, wrote:

Otter:
Eye in Sky; Nice. The evening light is just right to demonstrate the
time and yet have the foreground structures identifiable, without having
the stereotypical "golden" or "red" sunset.

I like the overall composition. Just to pic a nit, the boat light in the
river is a mild distraction. I would have toned it down a smidge.

The light on the boat, and the light on the horizon "the eye in the
sky" are the whole point of the picture, at least in my mind. I was
going for some kind of metaphysical statement. But I can see how you
might think they are just a boat and a football field.

They certainly contribute a lot to your composition. For my taste the
river light is just too bright. However, if you as the maker feel
otherwise, that is the ultimate decision.


Thanks for the input, I might try to tone the boat light down a little
to see what it looks like. But in my mind it is not a distraction.
It is meant to grab your attention. I had this weird idea of the boat
representing a prodigal son coming home, or a seeker searching for
enlightenment. And I do realize that is just all inside my head. :-)

Not at all a weird idea. We have too many mundane images. Go with your
imagination. Please don't slavishly follow anyone's comments. Just
consider them and adopt pieces to the extent they are compatible with
you taste. I try to make my images mine.
I think that art photography is both an art and a craft.
On the art side: What I learn from others, is primarily inspiration.
On the craft side, technique.

Seconded.

When I comment on SI submissions I attempt to separate the art from the
craft. For surreal images (my favourite kind), I assume that the artist
"got their art right" therefore I can indicate only my appreciation of
the art. If I don't like it, be pleased. Surreal art is supposed to
provoke a reaction, it is irrelevant whether the reaction is positive
or negative. The art is a failure only when everyone says "It's OK."

If I dislike, or do not understand, the art, I try to put that aside
while I think of technical aspects that may be detracting from the art.

My artistic and technical knowledge is very limited, which makes me
totally unqualified to comment on the submissions. Who the hell am I to
critique the works of others? Why don't I just submit images then sit
back and learn from the experience of others? Because, I never want my
art, or anyone else's, to be "designed by committee."

Each of us is an adherent of some photographic rules. I'm obsessed with
bokeh, horizons, vanishing points, optical illusions, chroma noise,
distracting dots/lines, and tone - the distribution of levels in terms
of both contrast and colour. Yet for the life of me I can't learn to
frame or compose an image.

Absolutely no disrespect to any of you, I've learnt a heck of a lot
more useful stuff from local art groups, galleries, self-employed pro.
photographers, and the feature editors of publications than I've ever
learnt from camera clubs

I've left my biggest obsession until last: "rendering intent." While
writing my comments on SI submissions I have no idea as to the intended
rendering of each image. I wonder, is its purpose: to look good as
displayed on the Web page with a black background; to be the front
cover of a magazine; to be a double-page spread in a prestigious
journal; to be framed and offered for sale at a high price; or to be a
giant poster on display in a shop or on billboard?

You all must be sick to death of me harping on about this: a digital
image is not a finished product, the rendering of it is out of our
control. If you give me a perfect image and I display it on a ****
monitor, it will look terrible. If you send me a beautifully framed
print, designed to look its best under carefully controlled
incandescent lighting (a studio or gallery) it will look **** hanging
on my bedroom wall illuminated by cold North-East afternoon light.

The oft-forgotten aspect of "rendering intent" is the appropriate
rendition of sharpness throughout an image to match the visual acuity
of the viewer. Nature has fine detail from the macro right down to the
micro: the outline of a forest should be sharp as should be the fine
detail in each leaf. Even a 60 MP camera isn't going to record that
range. Visual acuity peaks around 7 to 9 line-pairs per degree and
drops to almost zero by 30 (20/20 vision). Unlike an painter, a
photographer has to juggle with depth-of-field, diffraction, camera
resolution, available light, dynamic range, and noise. If the
photographer does not know the rendering intent for the image then it
is impossible to select "best" values for ISO, aperture and shutter
speed, let alone select or purchase his/her best lens for the job.
Examples:

1. A windmill in the mist does not need a camera and lens combination
that has 12 f-stops of dynamic range and the last word in spatial
resolution; it requires a combination that is extraordinarily good at
resolving micro-contrast and subtleties of colour.

2. Resolving every defect in a model's face is not "good photography."

3. A section of picket fence as the main subject should look sharp, but
the fine detail in the surrounding grass or gravel should not look
sharp. Such a shot requires an image with high MTF at mid frequencies
and low MTF at high frequencies. The definition of "mid" and "high"
spatial frequencies must coincide with the visual acuity of the viewer,
not a lens-test MTF chart.

On 9/16/2011 10:01 AM, tony cooper wrote:

snip



"Lighthouse Morning", PeterN, is interesting, but why did you chop the
top and include so much at the bottom? It's a photo within a photo.
There's a man taking a photograph of a woman out on the deck.

As usual, your comments are interesting and thoughtful.

From a composition standpoint I had to choose between the leading lines
of the ramp ant the tip of the mast on the lighthouse. I should have
cloned out the tip of the mast.
You do have an eye for people. Look closely, she has her hands on her
hips while we was taking the sunrise. In reality, she was nudging him
about breakfast.


"Sausage and Peppers" was probably fun to do, but ... you know.

It was a fun thing.I do understand that not everybody would want that
image on their wall. My wife wouldn't.

"Sunset Lovers" is more interesting.

As a redo, I will probably posterize everything but the sky.

As an aside, our CC will be participating in an experimental Island wide
competition for creative images. What is creative will be left to the
maker. However, the category is intended to: "bridge the gap between
nature and abstract.'

The members will also be voting on the most popular image each month.


Two people who didn't take a photograph good enough to submit: Tony
Cooper and Bruce.

Aw Tony! I try to use the SI to get me out of my comfort zone.

--
Peter

On 2011-09-16 15:01:49 +0100, tony cooper said:

PeteA's photos are gems of rich color. Really good shots. There's
something lacking in composition, but Pete can't really move around
those ships and pose them. I'd like to see Pete try finding a more
solitary subject that can be part of, but not dominant to, the scene
and see what he can do with it.

Many thanks, Tony, for the very useful feedback. I tend to use dramatic
colours (surrealism) to detract from my lack of ability for composition.

I also have to face up to the reality that I'm extremely vulnerable if
I wander into a remote area to get a better shot. The last time I was
taking night shots I overheard the conversation between the occupants
of three cars that had parked in the vicinity - it seems they decided
to leave me alone because they thought I had enough money to pursue
them if they stole my camera gear and car. Luckily, they stay up so
late at night that I can safely go back at dawn

On 9/15/2011 3:04 PM, Elliott Roper wrote:
In article
,
wrote:

On Sep 14, 4:39 pm, wrote:
On 9/14/2011 2:01 PM, Pete A wrote:
snip
Pretty funny, nobody seems to like the "bridge" shot. Oh, well. And the
bokeh on the mushroom shot is, well, the product of a zoom. But I liked
the color of the mushrooms. This one makes really nice wallpaper.
Luckily I got this shot before my dog ate them.

I liked the Bridge shot, but just not one of my favorites of this
collection. I liked the colors, but it was a little busy.

The bridge shot was my favourite! So French Impressionist!
Savageduck's "San Simeon State Beach at dusk/Sunset, through the marine
layer fog" had the same lovely mood.

What is it with water and sunset/rise? No-fail subject or what?

Nah, nobody liked mine.


Which brings me to your "SI_dusk_Otter_eye_in_sky.jpg". I loved the way
the boat's bow wave connected the flat distant stuff with the warm
light coming from the houses on the bottom right. The illusion of depth
in that area was so different from the rest of the picture that it kept
drawing my eyes back for another peep. I didn't like the purple sky
much, it turned it into a theatre set backdrop. I tried brushing a heap
of desaturation into the sky area. It certainly hurt less, but the
picture looked a lot less magical.
Mine was going to be this old one:-
http://gallery.me.com/elliott_roper#100080/_MG_8298_2&bgcolor=black
but when I went to Google to remind myself how to spell "Merzouga"
there were about 1000 almost identical pictures and I chickened out of
offering the SI the ultimate tourist camel cliché.

On 9/16/2011 10:01 AM, tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:40:58 -0400, wrote:

The Dusk or Dawn gallery is posted, and it's a very healthy gallery,
too. Some nice shots in there. Take a look, and offer a friendly
critique, if you dare.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/duskdawn

Pithy comments:

Bowser1& Bowser2: Both excellent shots, but how they fit the Dusk to
Dawn mandate baffles me. Bowser3 fits the mandate, but is a rather
trite view of a much-photographed setting.

All three shots were taken at dusk. the first one, I thought, was pretty
obvious, but I'll grant you the mushrooms isn't as obvious. But it was
taken at dusk and the light was really nice.

And once again, nobody likes that damned third shot.

:-)