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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Blue
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Blue
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:52:22 +0200, "MJK" wrote:
"Home" ... protect planet http://images-piegees.over-blog.com/...-32501655.html Not too bad. Though with such a small subject it's a bit lost in all the empty space. You might have had a little more impact and impression by tightening up on the subject without losing much in the composition. Much of the beauty of nature is in the details. (Ever photograph diatoms or snowflakes through a microscope? You'd know what I mean. This last winter I invented a new dark-field lighting system just for accenting the intricate crystalline facets of snowflakes.) The intricacies of the venation in the wings would have been a good contrast to all the empty space if you had made that a larger part of the image. Not to mention catching a wider range of all the intense blues available there. The wings were exposed well and there could have been lots of fine details to hold and entertain the eye longer. Otherwise, not too bad. You could have had a little more impact too by watching your background--arranging the main subject so it is outlined by one of the lighter fields in the bokeh. The dark of the intensely-blue wings against the light. See that large patch of lighter blue just to the left and down from the damsel-fly behind the brightly-lit leaf? A slight shift in your vantage-point could have brought that oval out-of-focus area to frame the main subject like a stage-light, it's shape also mirroring the curvature of the wings. The lighter leaves too would have then been outlined by the darker greens. Even better is if you could have found a light bright-green area in the background to contrast the darker blue wings to frame and highlight them. Contrasting both in intensity and color. More subject contrast, more compositional focus (not optical focus), more reason for a viewer's eye to stay. Pay attention to everything that is in your camera's FOV even if it is out of focus. The subconscious mind takes it all in. Beginners and amateurs never realize that the out-of-focus areas in backgrounds and foregrounds are just as important, if not more-so at times, than the main subject(s). Maximize the use of it all to keep a viewer's eye engaged. You can't easily change that in editing, just like when shooting with a polarizer, this must be done at the time of shooting. Pay attention to it all before you even think about pressing the shutter. A good photographer attacks/survives his photography like a person who is riding out a bad car-accident. Everything is in slow motion, your senses intensely heightened. In that short period of time that you have to capture the shot you'll make hundreds of subtle and important decisions on when to trip that shutter and make it all count. One second can seem like an eternity to a good photographer because they are assessing everything all at once. This is what makes the difference between the 99.9999% of all snapshooter camera owners and the rare few real photographers. At least this shot beats that other low-level remedial "My best ever!" damsel-fly posted earlier by some 1st-grade beginner that wasn't even worth the viewing time. And thanks for not trashing the subject with some egotistical "LOOK AT MY NAME!" water-mark crap. Any photography that has ever been submitted to me for approval or inspection was immediately rejected when they try that remedial beginner's ego nonsense. Like some kindergartner jumping up and down in his seat, wanting everyone to know their useless name and never doing one thing worth remembering other than that. Like "Timmeh!" on South-Park. No difference. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Blue
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:55:24 -0700 (PDT), Nicko
wrote: On Jun 11, 3:07*am, Critic wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:52:22 +0200, "MJK" wrote: "Home" ... protect planet http://images-piegees.over-blog.com/...-32501655.html Not too bad. criminally pretentious drivel mercifully deleted You need to get closer. The kind of comment that one of the 99.9999% snapshooters of the world would, and could, ever make. They think that's all that might ever matter in their 100% remedial scrapshots. I guess you'd give the same advice to someone who is shooting a stark and barren parking-lot from high above, an empty space that contains one black car stranded in a field of snow, just so you could read the license plate. "You need to get closer!" Emptiness in a photo is just as important to making or breaking an award winner. It is from the nothingness that's the somethingness acquires and attains its worth. Without both in correct balance and tensional proportion you have mundane mediocrity--the snapshot, the scrapshot, the typical yawn-fest visual that floods all mindless media today. Go study the word "composition" and why it's never been in your mind's vocabulary before. However, it is fortunate that you provided the perfect example of contrast between the way any beginner wannabe thinks when using their "fancy new camera" and how a pro instinctively and reflexively uses any camera that might be in their hands. Good job! Thanks. Very universally fractal of you to do so. You have provided, and are, the nothingness from which the somethingness acquires and attains its worth. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Blue
Critic wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:55:24 -0700 (PDT), Nicko wrote: On Jun 11, 3:07 am, Critic wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:52:22 +0200, "MJK" wrote: "Home" ... protect planet http://images-piegees.over-blog.com/...-32501655.html Not too bad. criminally pretentious drivel mercifully deleted You need to get closer. The kind of comment that one of the 99.9999% snapshooters of the world would, and could, ever make. They think that's all that might ever matter in their 100% remedial scrapshots. Arumph... your own critic starts with: Though with such a small subject it's a bit lost in all the empty space. You might have had a little more impact and impression by tightening up on the subject without losing much in the composition. Much of the beauty of nature is in the details. I fail to see much difference (except in length) between the two. -- Bertrand |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Blue
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:22:11 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote: Critic wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:55:24 -0700 (PDT), Nicko wrote: On Jun 11, 3:07 am, Critic wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:52:22 +0200, "MJK" wrote: "Home" ... protect planet http://images-piegees.over-blog.com/...-32501655.html Not too bad. criminally pretentious drivel mercifully deleted You need to get closer. The kind of comment that one of the 99.9999% snapshooters of the world would, and could, ever make. They think that's all that might ever matter in their 100% remedial scrapshots. Arumph... your own critic starts with: Though with such a small subject it's a bit lost in all the empty space. You might have had a little more impact and impression by tightening up on the subject without losing much in the composition. Much of the beauty of nature is in the details. I fail to see much difference (except in length) between the two. " .... Pay attention to it all before you even think about pressing the shutter. ..." Emphasis on the ellipses. Of course you wouldn't see much difference. This is of no surprise, quite expected. Your mind can only embrace just so much at any one moment. Yours and the previous poster's minds shut down after the very first tiny portion of compositional assessments. You started to choke on more. It must be broken down into the simplest of terms and spoon-fed to you in easy to masticate baby-sized servings of pablum so that you don't asphyxiate yourself on the larger adult-sized portions. Thus defining the difference between true arts and mediocrity, the photographer and the crapshooter, the genius and the utter moron. We'll all wait while you grow up enough to chew on and digest the rest. * You're only teething still. * Helpful advice: do try to avoid other places and posts on the internet that might challenge your abilities and sensibilities. I doubt that you'll ever be ready for more. If you are old enough to type then you have most likely already become all that you will ever be inside. Things like you don't normally change nor grow. Recognize your limitations (like the ones you adequately displayed here) and learn to be happy within them. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Blue
Critic wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:22:11 +0200, Ofnuts wrote: Critic wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:55:24 -0700 (PDT), Nicko wrote: On Jun 11, 3:07 am, Critic wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:52:22 +0200, "MJK" wrote: "Home" ... protect planet http://images-piegees.over-blog.com/...-32501655.html Not too bad. criminally pretentious drivel mercifully deleted You need to get closer. The kind of comment that one of the 99.9999% snapshooters of the world would, and could, ever make. They think that's all that might ever matter in their 100% remedial scrapshots. Arumph... your own critic starts with: Though with such a small subject it's a bit lost in all the empty space. You might have had a little more impact and impression by tightening up on the subject without losing much in the composition. Much of the beauty of nature is in the details. I fail to see much difference (except in length) between the two. " .... Pay attention to it all before you even think about pressing the shutter. ..." Emphasis on the ellipses. Of course you wouldn't see much difference. This is of no surprise, quite expected. Your mind can only embrace just so much at any one moment. Yours and the previous poster's minds shut down after the very first tiny portion of compositional assessments. You started to choke on more. It must be broken down into the simplest of terms and spoon-fed to you in easy to masticate baby-sized servings of pablum so that you don't asphyxiate yourself on the larger adult-sized portions. Thus defining the difference between true arts and mediocrity, the photographer and the crapshooter, the genius and the utter moron. We'll all wait while you grow up enough to chew on and digest the rest. * You're only teething still. * Helpful advice: do try to avoid other places and posts on the internet that might challenge your abilities and sensibilities. I doubt that you'll ever be ready for more. If you are old enough to type then you have most likely already become all that you will ever be inside. Things like you don't normally change nor grow. Recognize your limitations (like the ones you adequately displayed here) and learn to be happy within them. Why don't you just say "you moron!"? Suffering from a bad case of typorrhea? -- Bertrand, trying to help |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Blue Chair Pad | [email protected] | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | May 21st 09 04:21 AM |
RVP 100 a bit too blue? | Alan Browne | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 7 | June 4th 07 05:58 AM |
Is this photo too blue? | Cynicor | Digital Photography | 12 | September 15th 06 06:12 PM |
Mystery Blue | Don Dunlap | Digital Photography | 11 | December 20th 04 10:54 AM |