First of all, thanks for all the great comments on my last four shots – it's encouraged me to think about putting up more mini-series. What I found especially interesting was the wide range of responses, and how people differed in their opinions regarding each of the four shots. Normally the stuff that goes up on chromasia is fairly eclectic so any comments are normally in response to a single shot. With a series of shots the dialogue becomes a bit broader and less fragmentary – I've enjoyed it.
All that I need to do now is actually find the time to shoot them ;-)
As for this shot: I went out for a while this afternoon, but left it a bit too late. By the time I got to the sea-front I only had about ten minutes of decent light before the setting sun dropped behind some low clouds so I didn't really get any of the shots I went out for. And I was going to say something negative about this shot but I received yet another email today telling me that it's really irritating for me to say "this shot is crap" then receive various comments saying "oh no it's not". So I'll shut up instead ;-)
More seriously: and I've said this before, I'm always delighted to receive positive comments on my work – who doesn't like compliments – but I also need some critical input; some way of moving me forward. I wrote a bit about the commenting at chromasia a while ago, which you can read here if you're interested, but it amounts to the fact that I'm more that happy to receive any amount of constructive critique.
Oh, finally: I've been re-coding the secondary categories of some of my entries and adding in some subcategories prior to re-arranging my archives, so if anything doesn't work as expected please let me know.
capture date camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped?
4.03pm on 13/1/05
Canon 20D
EF 70-200 f/4L USM
126mm (202mm equiv.)
f/4.0
1/125
aperture priority
+0.0
evaluative
400
no
RAW
C1 Pro
no
comment bybarb at 09:13 PM (GMT) on 13 January, 2005
this is the kind of shot that I would be really happy to get after
hours of looking around in the suburbs! Well done for picking it
up on a "failed" mission!! I'm interested to know what you don't
like about it though?
comment bydjn1 at 09:21 PM (GMT) on 13 January, 2005
Thanks barb: there are two things that I think could have been better about this shot, both related to depth of field. First, the front-most edge of the sign is just out of focus and second, the couple in the background are rather ill-defined. I think that if I'd upped the ISO to 800 and shot with a slightly smaller aperture the shot would have been a little bit better.
comment byTodd at 10:31 PM (GMT) on 13 January, 2005
Yeah, I see that. I didn't even notice the couple in the background until I read your comment, they just blend in with what I thought was some kind of construction site. This , of course, means I missed the whole point of the shot!
I think f/8 might give a little too much DOF though, ruining the subtlety of the pic. ISO800, f/5.6 at the same shutter speed...Any way you can go back out there and take some shots to test which would be better. I know this specific moment is gone, but this is one of the most difficult things I find with photography and would be interested in what would've worked
comment byJerome at 10:43 PM (GMT) on 13 January, 2005
I was going to write that I agree with you, Dave, that the relationship between foreground and background has been lost. Then again, the sign restricts our access to the background. I find myself wanting to know what's going on back there but I can't quite tell. The tension is engaging, especially since there are human figures. There would be no interest without them.
Compositionally a dead-on perspective can be stagnant, but again the direct confrontation of the sign makes it work. The fact that the sign has been damaged, and its position low in the frame, add to the tension--I'm almost through. Faced with this image, I can see myself using depth of field to tease the viewer with not-quite-enough information.
comment byAndy at 11:40 PM (GMT) on 13 January, 2005
When the pic first loaded up I was soooo impressed with it. But when I stared at the pic a few seconds longer the background just got too distracting maybe because not only is it totally blurred due to the lack of DOF but the colors are also too striking, bold and saturated. So your suggestion of using a slightly smaller aperture might be a good one ... I don't really know. Anyway I can't be too critical on this pic because I still think it is a good pic better than what I can shoot.
Since this post is talking about getting comments to move forward as a photographer ...I thought I’ll take this opportunity to invite anyone who wants to help me do that to check out my photoblog (www.mydepiction.com/photoblog). All comments are welcome and appreciated. My pics are no where as good as David’s but hopefully with some good comments I can improve.
Dave,
If you do not think the comment above is appropriate just remove it ... no worries ;)
comment bydavid at 11:45 PM (GMT) on 13 January, 2005
dave,
i was wondering if you'd care to email me your "very helpful horizon tip" (from notraces.com)... it's something i've been struggling with. d_ekrem@yahoo.com. thanks, --david
comment bystaticantics at 12:35 AM (GMT) on 14 January, 2005
this photo feels cliche. i don't find the backgroudn too distracting, neither do i find the composition terribly interesting.
perhaps a less 'straight-on' approach would have better reflected the scene? i can only go off of what i imagine would be there. a vertical shot ? i'm unsure.
comment bybtezra at 01:43 AM (GMT) on 14 January, 2005
~damn fine presentation of the powers of DOF...bright and contrasty colors...a bit centered for me, but the imapct is there visually...defintely effective....do you shoot a ton with the EF 70-200 f/4L USM, sounds like it would be apefect everyday lens to carry~
comment by Adriana at 03:27 AM (GMT) on 14 January, 2005
Hi Dave!! Mmay I ask what plugin did you use in your site to display the pictures? Beforehand thaks for the answer.
comment byeast3rd at 05:09 AM (GMT) on 14 January, 2005
Love the shot, but the background is a bit distracting. Problem is, any wider than f4.0, and you may have had difficulty getting the entire sign in sharp focus. Tough situation. All in all, I still like it a lot!
comment bymark at 06:12 AM (GMT) on 14 January, 2005
Is this the same sign that you shot a long while back when it was intact?
comment bykrisztina at 09:44 AM (GMT) on 14 January, 2005
for me, this strong saturation makes a too serene picture out of sth that could have been more menacing. [it seems that most people love these bright colors but i don't see their function here...] the background colors [that bit of red] really distracted my attention. [is this enough constructive? :O).]
comment byRainKing at 10:11 AM (GMT) on 14 January, 2005
For a moment I thought this was the same sign you shot some time ago. The one you use for the background of your copyright page. Then I realised the background is totally different and I doubt the sea has changed positio since then...
Anyway, I really liked the first one and I like this one too. Perhaps the only suggestion that I could make is that you shot with a bit more DoF so we could see what they are trying to keep us out from.
comment byTanner at 10:22 AM (GMT) on 14 January, 2005
wow..great colors..very crisp image.
this should be your submission to PhotoFriday's "signs" in my opinion
comment by peterv at 10:55 AM (GMT) on 14 January, 2005
I took the "point" of this photograph to be the state of the sign rather than the couple in the background when I first saw it. It was only when I read the comments that I realised there was a couple in the back ground, so yes, there is a problem here with the DOF.
Great resolution of the string and crud sticking to the chain.
comment by barb at 11:36 AM (GMT) on 14 January, 2005
you can enter this one for the photo friday challenge!
comment bymatt at 04:07 PM (GMT) on 14 January, 2005
My first impression of this shot was hey I like that alot. Then I noticed that it was on Chromasia ( I open a huge list of sites I check daily at once and flick through them as I have time throughout the morning). It is pretty out of character for you and for that I say good for you.
I really like to see good photographers stretching themselves instead of taking the same tired shots that they know they can capture with great success.
I am glad that you have taken to posting things that are a little more out of your comfort zone. If you are looking for ways to improve your skills I dont think there is any better way!
comment byRob at 04:57 PM (GMT) on 14 January, 2005
An entry for this weeks PhotoFriday maybe?
comment bybrenda at 05:40 PM (GMT) on 14 January, 2005
i personally have no interest in whats going on in the background....it says Keep Out doesn't it?
I also like the fact that it looks like its swinging almost..
nice job
comment byfrisky? at 07:35 PM (GMT) on 14 January, 2005
hmm, cant really add to whats already been said. i do agree that had the couple in the background (I didnt even realise thats what they were until i read comments) not been so blurry it would have been a better shot... but yea, this is a tough shot, since the sign itself seems to be comming at you so you dont know what point to focus on, the on closes to you or the T in "Keep Out".
Cheers!
comment bydjn1 at 09:07 PM (GMT) on 14 January, 2005
Thanks everyone.
Todd: I suspect that f/5.6 would have been ok.
Jerome: I wish I'd thought of saying that ;-)
Andy: no, I don't mind you posting the link.
david: I'll email you.
staticantics: no, it's not the most compelling shot I've put up recently.
btezra: yes, the 70-200 is a pretty useful lens for wandering around with.
mark: no, it's not the same. The council have these signs on all the steps down to the beach and put them up when the tide's in. I guess there are probably about 20-30 of them in total.
Tanner, barb and Rob: I may well enter this one for Photo Friday Signs.
First of all, thanks for all the great comments on my last four shots – it's encouraged me to think about putting up more mini-series. What I found especially interesting was the wide range of responses, and how people differed in their opinions regarding each of the four shots. Normally the stuff that goes up on chromasia is fairly eclectic so any comments are normally in response to a single shot. With a series of shots the dialogue becomes a bit broader and less fragmentary – I've enjoyed it.
All that I need to do now is actually find the time to shoot them ;-)
As for this shot: I went out for a while this afternoon, but left it a bit too late. By the time I got to the sea-front I only had about ten minutes of decent light before the setting sun dropped behind some low clouds so I didn't really get any of the shots I went out for. And I was going to say something negative about this shot but I received yet another email today telling me that it's really irritating for me to say "this shot is crap" then receive various comments saying "oh no it's not". So I'll shut up instead ;-)
More seriously: and I've said this before, I'm always delighted to receive positive comments on my work – who doesn't like compliments – but I also need some critical input; some way of moving me forward. I wrote a bit about the commenting at chromasia a while ago, which you can read here if you're interested, but it amounts to the fact that I'm more that happy to receive any amount of constructive critique.
Oh, finally: I've been re-coding the secondary categories of some of my entries and adding in some subcategories prior to re-arranging my archives, so if anything doesn't work as expected please let me know.
camera
lens
focal length
aperture
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
ISO
flash
image quality
RAW converter
cropped?
Canon 20D
EF 70-200 f/4L USM
126mm (202mm equiv.)
f/4.0
1/125
aperture priority
+0.0
evaluative
400
no
RAW
C1 Pro
no
this is the kind of shot that I would be really happy to get after
hours of looking around in the suburbs! Well done for picking it
up on a "failed" mission!! I'm interested to know what you don't
like about it though?
Thanks barb: there are two things that I think could have been better about this shot, both related to depth of field. First, the front-most edge of the sign is just out of focus and second, the couple in the background are rather ill-defined. I think that if I'd upped the ISO to 800 and shot with a slightly smaller aperture the shot would have been a little bit better.
Yeah, I see that. I didn't even notice the couple in the background until I read your comment, they just blend in with what I thought was some kind of construction site. This , of course, means I missed the whole point of the shot!
I think f/8 might give a little too much DOF though, ruining the subtlety of the pic. ISO800, f/5.6 at the same shutter speed...Any way you can go back out there and take some shots to test which would be better. I know this specific moment is gone, but this is one of the most difficult things I find with photography and would be interested in what would've worked
I was going to write that I agree with you, Dave, that the relationship between foreground and background has been lost. Then again, the sign restricts our access to the background. I find myself wanting to know what's going on back there but I can't quite tell. The tension is engaging, especially since there are human figures. There would be no interest without them.
Compositionally a dead-on perspective can be stagnant, but again the direct confrontation of the sign makes it work. The fact that the sign has been damaged, and its position low in the frame, add to the tension--I'm almost through. Faced with this image, I can see myself using depth of field to tease the viewer with not-quite-enough information.
When the pic first loaded up I was soooo impressed with it. But when I stared at the pic a few seconds longer the background just got too distracting maybe because not only is it totally blurred due to the lack of DOF but the colors are also too striking, bold and saturated. So your suggestion of using a slightly smaller aperture might be a good one ... I don't really know. Anyway I can't be too critical on this pic because I still think it is a good pic better than what I can shoot.
Since this post is talking about getting comments to move forward as a photographer ...I thought I’ll take this opportunity to invite anyone who wants to help me do that to check out my photoblog (www.mydepiction.com/photoblog). All comments are welcome and appreciated. My pics are no where as good as David’s but hopefully with some good comments I can improve.
Dave,
If you do not think the comment above is appropriate just remove it ... no worries ;)
dave,
i was wondering if you'd care to email me your "very helpful horizon tip" (from notraces.com)... it's something i've been struggling with. d_ekrem@yahoo.com. thanks, --david
this photo feels cliche. i don't find the backgroudn too distracting, neither do i find the composition terribly interesting.
perhaps a less 'straight-on' approach would have better reflected the scene? i can only go off of what i imagine would be there. a vertical shot ? i'm unsure.
~damn fine presentation of the powers of DOF...bright and contrasty colors...a bit centered for me, but the imapct is there visually...defintely effective....do you shoot a ton with the EF 70-200 f/4L USM, sounds like it would be apefect everyday lens to carry~
Hi Dave!! Mmay I ask what plugin did you use in your site to display the pictures? Beforehand thaks for the answer.
Love the shot, but the background is a bit distracting. Problem is, any wider than f4.0, and you may have had difficulty getting the entire sign in sharp focus. Tough situation. All in all, I still like it a lot!
Is this the same sign that you shot a long while back when it was intact?
for me, this strong saturation makes a too serene picture out of sth that could have been more menacing. [it seems that most people love these bright colors but i don't see their function here...] the background colors [that bit of red] really distracted my attention. [is this enough constructive? :O).]
For a moment I thought this was the same sign you shot some time ago. The one you use for the background of your copyright page. Then I realised the background is totally different and I doubt the sea has changed positio since then...
Anyway, I really liked the first one and I like this one too. Perhaps the only suggestion that I could make is that you shot with a bit more DoF so we could see what they are trying to keep us out from.
wow..great colors..very crisp image.
this should be your submission to PhotoFriday's "signs" in my opinion
I took the "point" of this photograph to be the state of the sign rather than the couple in the background when I first saw it. It was only when I read the comments that I realised there was a couple in the back ground, so yes, there is a problem here with the DOF.
Great resolution of the string and crud sticking to the chain.
you can enter this one for the photo friday challenge!
My first impression of this shot was hey I like that alot. Then I noticed that it was on Chromasia ( I open a huge list of sites I check daily at once and flick through them as I have time throughout the morning). It is pretty out of character for you and for that I say good for you.
I really like to see good photographers stretching themselves instead of taking the same tired shots that they know they can capture with great success.
I am glad that you have taken to posting things that are a little more out of your comfort zone. If you are looking for ways to improve your skills I dont think there is any better way!
An entry for this weeks PhotoFriday maybe?
i personally have no interest in whats going on in the background....it says Keep Out doesn't it?
I also like the fact that it looks like its swinging almost..
nice job
hmm, cant really add to whats already been said. i do agree that had the couple in the background (I didnt even realise thats what they were until i read comments) not been so blurry it would have been a better shot... but yea, this is a tough shot, since the sign itself seems to be comming at you so you dont know what point to focus on, the on closes to you or the T in "Keep Out".
Cheers!
Thanks everyone.
Todd: I suspect that f/5.6 would have been ok.
Jerome: I wish I'd thought of saying that ;-)
Andy: no, I don't mind you posting the link.
david: I'll email you.
staticantics: no, it's not the most compelling shot I've put up recently.
btezra: yes, the 70-200 is a pretty useful lens for wandering around with.
mark: no, it's not the same. The council have these signs on all the steps down to the beach and put them up when the tide's in. I guess there are probably about 20-30 of them in total.
Tanner, barb and Rob: I may well enter this one for Photo Friday Signs.