[SI] Still life - Alan's comments

Walter Banks wrote:

Alan,

I never thought about using the rail as a reference it is a good
idea.

As long as you can compensate from that reading.


This type of shot is where digital camera's are a good news bad news
issue. The 8 bit dynamic range of the camera means that it is hard to
post process exposure errors. To compound the issue the jpeg
compression loses detail that can be seen in the electronic
viewfinder in bright parts of objects (small black feathers on the
back of a Hairy Woodpeckers for example).

Well I hate to say it, but time for film or a DSLR...


Thanks for your comments

You're very welcome.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote in
:

Nice to see a little more participation, this round.

Before cutting into it, a comment about what a "Still Life" is: A
still life is composed, and limited to, a composition of inanimate
objects. Flowers, fruit, bolts of cloth, table settings and so on
being a very few examples.

Unless, of course, you read the mandate...

snippage

Al Denelsbeck
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268497

Another one that challenges the definition of "Still life". I do like
the "three worlds" aspect (Surface, sky/trees, bottom of puddle) of
this shot. The overall composition is not strong and a little
cropping could hace helped (top of image). Color is very muted, which
the leaf did not rescue, but the 'blue/grey' glow of the stones is
interesting.

Light wasn't cooperating that day, though with a clearer sky, the
reflection would have toned down considerably. I was, however,
aiming for the stillness of the water surface to reinforce the
mandate, and couldn't put together a composition that showed the
rushing water that surrounded this rock and still have the tiny pool
remain prominent.

And I guess I could've fulfilled the true definition of Still Life
by using a dried flower instead of a dried leaf, but then I couldn't
bait people to comment on how leaves have shown up in my last three
submissions. Same leaf, too ;-)

Okay, I lied about that. This one is many miles from the other two,
and really was within the pool.

Thanks for commenting. I would offer some myself, but that would
take time from watching people responding to trolls so
effectively...

- Al.


To respond directly, insert a dash to match domain below.
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Nice to see a little more participation, this round.

Before cutting into it, a comment about what a "Still Life" is: A
still life is composed, and limited to, a composition of inanimate
objects. Flowers, fruit, bolts of cloth, table settings and so on
being a very few examples.

[True, but when I set the mandate I did give some latitude beyond the
classical definition, so that people only interested in outdoor work might
still feel they wanted to participate.]


Onward...

Bandicoot
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268471

This is a great still life and wonderful study of light and contrast.
Very thoughtfully done. It gives me the impression that it is
layered from the floor up with light being the paintbrush and the
dried flowers and pots the canvas. The dead black background
at top is perfect for this composition. The only negative, though
that's a strong word, is the stem of the flower from the smaller
pot being on such a strong angle relative to the rest. OTOH, it
places the flower head nicely resulting in a 'triplet' of circles
described by the flower shapes. I really like this image and the
thought that went into making it.


Thank you for all that - I feel somewhat flattered, and a little embarrassed
that I still haven't found the time to put up my own critique/comments.

Since emailing this to Al I've worked on the scan a bit more and brought
down the background a little more and brightened the mid-tones a little, and
I think that improves the image - certainly it makes a better print now,
though whether the difference would show on the web I doubt.

I know what you mean about the diagonal stem that is so dynamic when the
rest of the composition is very still, but in the end I wanted that seedhead
where it is, but didn't want to move the small jug any further in front of
the larger one, so the only line joining those two points, was that one. In
fact I find I quite like the 'kick' that the dramatic diagonal gives.

This isn't a 35mm image, as some may have guessed. It's shot on a 6x9
rollfilm back on an Arca-Swiss M-Line 4x5. I prefer a monorail for
still-life (usually) and on this occasion I needed the movements in any
case: there is significant tilt employed to move the plane of focus closer
to the camera at the top of the image so that it passes through the jugs and
through the nearer seed-heads. Most of this is back tilt, which also
changes the size relationships, emphasising the seed-heads so that the
bright highlights on the jugs weren't too big and overwhelming, but there is
also some front tilt so that this effect doesn't go too far and make the
jugs look too small for what they are supporting.

Lens was a Rodenstock 150mm f9 Apo-Ronar, which on 6x9 is about the
equivalent of a 60mm lens on 35mm. most of my still life is done with this
lens or a 127mm f4.7 Rodenstock Ysaron - though I've recently added a used
Schneider 240mm f9 G-Claron to give a bit more working distance for 6x9, and
also to be a better choice for the very occasional still life that I do on
4x5. Aperture was f32, which gave enough DoF when combined with the tilts -
without tilt I'd have needed at least f90 and so had much lower resolution.

The seedheads are Allium cristophii, which I grow in my garden, and the
backdrop is a roll of dove grey seamless paper.

Despite all the techno-babble, what makes the picture is the light. I had
seen very good evening light for a couple of days, and decided to set up a
shot that would take advantage of it. This is all daylight, low evening sun
with a warm tint coming through a West facing window and goboed to produce
the shadows. Fill came from the large North window directly behind the
camera and from reflection - from the paper to lighten the undersides of the
jugs and from a wall opposite the main light which stopped their handles
disappearing. This wall is painted red, and usually I block it with black
or white flats when working in that room, but this time I blocked only part
of it with black cards, and allowed the very warm light to come through to
the jugs as I felt it helped the feel of the picture.

This all sounds like more work than it was: the longest part of the job was
getting the tilts just right - the key was having seen the light already,
and then setting up the next day so that when the evening came I was ready
for it.

I do shoot a lot of still-life as 'work' but this is a little different,
more dramatic, than I usually do, and I am pleased with it. I may do more
work like this now, I think...

Thanks for your kind comments, and interesting review of all the other SI
pictures this round.



Peter

Bandicoot wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Nice to see a little more participation, this round.

Before cutting into it, a comment about what a "Still Life" is: A
still life is composed, and limited to, a composition of inanimate
objects. Flowers, fruit, bolts of cloth, table settings and so on
being a very few examples.


[True, but when I set the mandate I did give some latitude beyond the
classical definition, so that people only interested in outdoor work might
still feel they wanted to participate.]

I read that after my labor on the comments and was too lazy to fix.
You're the only one who picked up on it though so, nyah-nyah.

Bandicoot
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268471

This is a great still life and wonderful study of light and contrast.
Very thoughtfully done. It gives me the impression that it is
layered from the floor up with light being the paintbrush and the
dried flowers and pots the canvas. The dead black background
at top is perfect for this composition. The only negative, though
that's a strong word, is the stem of the flower from the smaller
pot being on such a strong angle relative to the rest. OTOH, it
places the flower head nicely resulting in a 'triplet' of circles
described by the flower shapes. I really like this image and the
thought that went into making it.



Thank you for all that - I feel somewhat flattered, and a little embarrassed
that I still haven't found the time to put up my own critique/comments.

Since emailing this to Al I've worked on the scan a bit more and brought
down the background a little more and brightened the mid-tones a little, and
I think that improves the image - certainly it makes a better print now,
though whether the difference would show on the web I doubt.

I know what you mean about the diagonal stem that is so dynamic when the
rest of the composition is very still, but in the end I wanted that seedhead
where it is, but didn't want to move the small jug any further in front of
the larger one, so the only line joining those two points, was that one. In
fact I find I quite like the 'kick' that the dramatic diagonal gives.

I thought about my comment afterward and said to myself "Cripes that's
picky, Alan."

This isn't a 35mm image, as some may have guessed. It's shot on a 6x9
rollfilm back on an Arca-Swiss M-Line 4x5. I prefer a monorail for
still-life (usually) and on this occasion I needed the movements in any
case: there is significant tilt employed to move the plane of focus closer
to the camera at the top of the image so that it passes through the jugs and

Oh-oh. Annika will get a 4x5 now that you've said "jugs".

through the nearer seed-heads. Most of this is back tilt, which also
changes the size relationships, emphasising the seed-heads so that the
bright highlights on the jugs weren't too big and overwhelming, but there is
also some front tilt so that this effect doesn't go too far and make the
jugs look too small for what they are supporting.

If you say so. It's hard to visualize the effect of the tilts from the
words ... even with the photo.


Lens was a Rodenstock 150mm f9 Apo-Ronar, which on 6x9 is about the
equivalent of a 60mm lens on 35mm. most of my still life is done with this
lens or a 127mm f4.7 Rodenstock Ysaron - though I've recently added a used
Schneider 240mm f9 G-Claron to give a bit more working distance for 6x9, and
also to be a better choice for the very occasional still life that I do on
4x5. Aperture was f32, which gave enough DoF when combined with the tilts -
without tilt I'd have needed at least f90 and so had much lower resolution.

The seedheads are Allium cristophii, which I grow in my garden, and the
backdrop is a roll of dove grey seamless paper.

Despite all the techno-babble, what makes the picture is the light. I had
seen very good evening light for a couple of days, and decided to set up a
shot that would take advantage of it. This is all daylight, low evening sun
with a warm tint coming through a West facing window and goboed to produce
the shadows. Fill came from the large North window directly behind the
camera and from reflection - from the paper to lighten the undersides of the
jugs and from a wall opposite the main light which stopped their handles
disappearing. This wall is painted red, and usually I block it with black
or white flats when working in that room, but this time I blocked only part
of it with black cards, and allowed the very warm light to come through to
the jugs as I felt it helped the feel of the picture.

This all sounds like more work than it was: the longest part of the job was
getting the tilts just right - the key was having seen the light already,
and then setting up the next day so that when the evening came I was ready
for it.

Who says there's no work in a great image?

I do shoot a lot of still-life as 'work' but this is a little different,
more dramatic, than I usually do, and I am pleased with it. I may do more
work like this now, I think...

Should sell in the right market.

Thanks for your kind comments, and interesting review of all the other SI
pictures this round.

Well deserved and I doubt I did your image justice.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]

This isn't a 35mm image, as some may have guessed. It's shot on a
6x9 rollfilm back on an Arca-Swiss M-Line 4x5. I prefer a
monorail for still-life (usually) and on this occasion I needed the
movements in any case: there is significant tilt employed to move
the plane of focus closer to the camera at the top of the image so
that it passes through the jugs and

Oh-oh. Annika will get a 4x5 now that you've said "jugs".


ROFL!

A couple of months back my girlfriend sent me a card with a cartoon version
of a 'Vermeer like' painting showing a buxom lady in C16th dress working in
a kitchen. On the table are earthenware bowls and jugs, and she is pouring
milk from one of the jugs as if in the process of making cheese. The
caption was two different newspaper reviews:

The Times - "Words can't describe the sublime way Vermeer has depicted the
earthenware in this masterpiece."

The Sun - "Nice jugs."

Since then, "Nice earthenware" has become a running joke for us...

Thanks again for your other comments,



Peter