 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Are you showing this pic, as a good example of what....... posted by Joe M on May 18, 2004 at 05:28:42:
Perhaps this is more appropiate for the season.
:)Talk about quickies...
Seriously, I do with with Vinyly that shutter lag is still a problem with the cams. Hopefully, one that will be gone within a year, hopefully.
Follow Ups:
Take some courses or join a Camera Club.
Okies... let's analyse the title of that post:It contains the words: shoot, dead, bullseye and target.
Shall the good folk take you out for some archery lessons today or are you simply feeling a bit hostile? Or do you just not like birds? Perhaps you should eat some chicken tonight. Forgive me if you're a vegaterian; though you don't seem to come across that way, heh..
> > Okies... let's analyse the < <
> > e if you're a vegaterian; < <Yes I am a handgun shooter S&W 41 Magnum, however as a nature photog I can say I never hurt an animal. I Take Plenty of Pixs and Leave Nothing but Footprints.
Don't shoot me I'm only the messenger.
Now consider yourself Mopped Up!!!
First off, 'Okies' is slang for 'Okay'. So, no boo-boo there. As for 'analyse' believe it or not, the American way of spelling words is not the only way. For instance, I prefer colour over color and so forth. As for vegetarian, Joe Merriam Webster, you are correct. I'd better, as you would say, 'have another drink', lest I make another typo as horrific as this.But as for your capitalising every other word in sentences you think fitting, I do advise you to have another drink, pal. And do work on your identifying skills before pointing your trigger finger. Perhaps have two drinks, pal.
Consider yourself instructed.
I hope your quick on the feet.
Yeah, the rule of thirds will always guarantee you a "good photo." Puuulleaase the "dead center = bad composition" is a farce being foisted off by people who use formulas for composition instead of what works best for the subject.Rules of composition were made up AFTER the fact by people trying to analyze a successful work of art. S-curves, rule of thirds, triangular compositions, etc. etc. sure, they may work with some subjects, but use of a compositional rule doesn't guarantee a good image.
Just put the subject into the frame where it's most comfortable and quit using "rules" - or, please show me a copy of the "Photo Composition Rule Book." I prefer the latest edition. Does it have an ISO number?
With all due respect to Joe , who is an excellent photographer, I agree with you and would add that the rules of photography (and for that matter, music) change when a particular "wrong" method breaks the commercial ice and then becomes accepted:
You can't shoot photojournalism with wide-angle lenses.
You can't shoot studio fashion with just one light.
You can't shoot woman looking natural.
You can't shoot ethnic-looking women for fashion.
You can't shoot black and white ads in major magazines.
Flare is bad.
You can't shoot black and white at weddings.
You can't shoot photo-journalistic type shots at weddings.
You can't shoot portraits unless you just show the persons face and shoulders.
You can't crop out a persons head on a photo even though the person isn't the subject.
I ignored all of those "cannots " as well as others.
I hope that those just getting started out do the same.
You may not enjoy financial sucess or fame, but you will experience the joy of creativity.
The more you become familar with the cpompositional guides (not rules, ok) handed down from the Great Masters of the past through out Art history. The more successful your creation becomes. This may ensure your hard work, will be admired by more viewers.It's akin to raising children, they need structure in their upbringing. Before they can be adults on their own.
Anyway it's to early and I need my coffee! This can be discussed to death.
You mean painters? Yeah, that's real applicable to photographs. Look very carefully at DaVinci's "Last Supper" some time. How many vanishing points does it have? How do you do THAT with a photograph where the vanishing point is geometrically generated from the optical center of the lens? Oh, and check out the distorted perspective. How do you do that with a photograph.See that's the problem. These western rules of composition were developed over a period of time by painters who used all sorts of compositional "tricks" (forced perspective, multiple perspectives, multiple vanishing points, etc.) to generate the final image. Photography (as a single exposure image) doesn't have all that latitude to force a composition to work. So while your admiring the "triangular compositions" within the "Last Supper" that "make it work," you're missing the other more subtle compositional elements used within the image that reinforce the main compositional rule elements that you can identify.
Then if you study something like Chinese art history, you'll find out that their "rules of composition" are totally different than western (European) rules of composition. So, now just which rules are we to follow?
"The more you become familar with the cpompositional guides (not rules, ok) handed down from the Great Masters of the past through out Art history. The more successful your creation becomes. This may ensure your hard work, will be admired by more viewers."
Oh, give me a break. You don't really believe that do you? You mean, let's make rule bound photos because that's what the majority of people can relate to? Wow, that sounds like a lot of fun and a sure-fire road to interesting photos.
Sorry, can't buy into that one. There are only two types of photographs: the interesting kind and the boring kind. Slavish adherance to rules WON'T move a boring photo in the interesting category just because it follows a rule of composition. It will still be a boring photo composed according to a rule of composition.
Also, don't have the faintest idead what your attempted "children / adult" metaphor has to do with photographs.
Every asshole has one! :^)Were you a wedding photog? Sounds that way, you never had to please an editor for a paycheck did you.
Just get aunt Martha's face in the shot and the bride was happy.
You can't seem to discuss an issue, so instead you reveal your true intellectual level. No wonder you compose photos by rules - you don't have to think for yourself or make something original.Interesting that you think you can pinpoint exactly what type of photography I used to do - except your totally wrong.
...they don't know what the floor is till their face has been wiped with it.
Only, secret code, you're out of the Loop, sorry!..................Go have another Drink guy.
Luckily, I'm a recovering professional photographer who has now gladly attained the rank of amateur. I'll leave making all the great, important photos that follow the rules to guys like you.
I didn't know these cranes were a habitated Florida. These are Maribou Cranes which are from Africa and India. In India the local people called them 'Adjutants' because the stood around like British 'Adjutant Officers'. It was intended to be an insult because these cranes are quite dirty. They are 'carian' and just hang around the villages eating scraps of dead and decaying meat and food scraps, -a living garbage disposal. Many times you see them in Africa just hanging around waiting for the lions and hyenas to leave scraps of leftovers after a kill.
Just off FL east coast on Merritt Island near Titusville and Melbourne, by the Space Center. You have to take a bit of a walk to get close enough with a 400mm- 600mm lens. Shot in springtime around March.
"Dead center.." and "..bad composition"? Yeah, that sums up the Photoshop'ed picture of your lifeless, sluggish birds. When you get a photograph of a bird just as it's about to launch off its perch with wings spread wide, then you can whine all you want. We're talking about a fraction of a millisecond, no post-processing, and surprise!--it wasn't even a Zeiss.Thanks for the response. So much for attempting good-natured humor.
Keep smilin :)
Here in the Everglades near my home. How many action shots you want to look at ? I got 'em pal. I'm not about to put them all on the net , for free use.
I've taught more pro's photography ,then you can shake a tree with.So while you dream you can shoot , I make a living at it.
How 'bout just showing ONE action shot for staters, please? And just set it at 50 DPI so nobody can STEAL it, pal.You ask me how many 'action shots' I want to look at and then tell me that you won't show them to me, interesting. I've got tons of action shots and would be willing to post them in the interest of discussion and sharing. Isn't that what this forum is for.. or is it for arguing?
Regarding the 'dead center' matter of the mating doves that you decided to push aside because you realised there was no possible way of a come-back; how would you compose a shot of two doves mating taken on the fly so to speak? Place them in the upper left-hand corner? I believe two doves mating is indeed the subject of the photograph, not the greenery.
Peace and happy shooting
I took the liberty to photoshop your mating shot . In an effort to show another possiblity by a different shooter , side by side with you.That other shooter might use a diferent lens and settings. Say an 80-200 f2.8 working aperature or even a more tele, like 300 f4 opening. This would cause the shallow focus, giving the effect of blurring some distracting elements within the scene . With the leaves out of focus , this would allow the viewers full attention onto those love birds.
I then would prefocus on the action awaiting for the right moment, adjusting my framing of-center for better composition.
When came time to print, I would dodge (lighten the feathers a little) and burn down (darken those white bright highlights, where white kills a scene faster than anything). Leaving all emphasis where it belongs just on the Doves.
This is certainly not the only treatment in capturing a good photo, but what I did fast to show you some alternative.
Show us more please, I know others here enjoy nature pix's
Thank you for cleaning up the image and for the welcome.
Your skills are evident by this action alone.I agree with all of your points and would have done the same if conditions were different. I was out walking and just happened to catch this activity out of the corner of my eye. This was strictly a quick capture situation. There was simply no time to make the adjustments that I would have preferred because the male dove was ready to take off. Regarding post-processing, I generally don't play around with photoshop unless I have a real knock-out image that I am going to market or whatever.
But thank you again for taking the time and energy to clean up what was meant to be a cute and humorous on-the-fly shot. It looks much better, Joe, and aptly demonstrates your obvious talents.
And I am positive that you were also a great editor
.
Cheers!
I stayed up last night til almost 1oclock, recreating that shot for you, and anyone reading that post. Looking forword to more and varying dialog between us.(c)photo by Joe M 2004
Be well.
| Register / Login |
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
