On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:25:54 -0800, "Mr. Strat"
<rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in
<191120072125543137%rag@nospam.techline.com>:
>In article <5kl4k396tm876um5muueb8ce1phrdhnc76@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> ...even without the "perfect" tool!
>
>It looks like you know as much about photography as you do about
>Motorola cell phone chargers.
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 03:39:29 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>...even without the "perfect" tool!
>
><http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030761filteredek8.jpg>
><http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030765filteredko3.jpg>
><http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030774filtereded6.jpg>
><http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030792filterednc7.jpg>
><http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030817filteredoc6.jpg>
><http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030826filteredbk8.jpg>
EEEK! OH NO! Birds in flight? Hand-held shots from a moving rocking boat? Sharp
images? And NOT from a DSLR? What are we to think now! RUN-AWAY! EEEK!!! The sky
is falling! The sky is falling!
:-)
Nice shots, and the others of the bridge too, nice compositions, of those I
spied. I didn't get a chance to look at them all. Slow country-dial-up here,
busy downloading tomes of e-books, bandwidth pinned.
Out of the random draw of the ones I did see, can I make a slight suggestion?
You took too long to answer that, so here it is. That *nc7.jpg one from this
list. The gull following and preparing to land on the boat. As the image was
loading s..l..o..w..l..y I kept wondering, "what is that thing at the bottom?
interesting," while my eyes kept scanning the image looking for clues to solve
the interjected question. Then as it was finally revealed by the appearance of
that railing, all the suspense was lost. The image became commonplace rather
than artistic. Commonplace in that it was now clear of, where, what, and why was
happening. Mystery gone, no longer necessary to keep looking at the photo for
other clues to where the viewer as well as the bird might be. That one might
lend itself well to a tight vertical composition, cutting off any hints of what
that canvas cover belongs to, but still keeping it in the shot. While I've not
loaded it into an editor to try it, it might even survive a tight enough
cropping to cut off a whole right portion of the gull, to provide a nice
asymmetric balance and tension between the whites in the image. Definitely keep
that distant sail in it, two things carried by the wind. That has to stay in the
image I've found that with wildlife photography some of the best I've done
doesn't often include the whole animal. Many times just a hint of what it must
and should be suffices and keeps the viewers' attention. It's hard to present
any well-known animals in new and interesting ways. That can often help for
composition options and, when done, gives the viewer's mind something to do. Its
best if your image doesn't immediately answer all their questions. (a fog
shrouded bridge for example)
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 06:02:23 GMT, Art C. Ritique <nomail@spamnot.net>
wrote in <str4k35pcld8h1lqrtcdo3v5rar8ru219a@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 03:39:29 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>...even without the "perfect" tool!
>>
>><http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030761filteredek8.jpg>
>><http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030765filteredko3.jpg>
>><http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030774filtereded6.jpg>
>><http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030792filterednc7.jpg>
>><http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030817filteredoc6.jpg>
>><http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030826filteredbk8.jpg>
>
>
>EEEK! OH NO! Birds in flight? Hand-held shots from a moving rocking boat? Sharp
>images? And NOT from a DSLR? What are we to think now! RUN-AWAY! EEEK!!! The sky
>is falling! The sky is falling!
>
>:-)
>
>Nice shots, and the others of the bridge too, nice compositions, of those I
>spied. I didn't get a chance to look at them all. Slow country-dial-up here,
>busy downloading tomes of e-books, bandwidth pinned.
Thank you.
>Out of the random draw of the ones I did see, can I make a slight suggestion?
>You took too long to answer that, so here it is. That *nc7.jpg one from this
>list. The gull following and preparing to land on the boat. As the image was
>loading s..l..o..w..l..y I kept wondering, "what is that thing at the bottom?
>interesting," while my eyes kept scanning the image looking for clues to solve
>the interjected question. Then as it was finally revealed by the appearance of
>that railing, all the suspense was lost. The image became commonplace rather
>than artistic. Commonplace in that it was now clear of, where, what, and why was
>happening. Mystery gone, no longer necessary to keep looking at the photo for
>other clues to where the viewer as well as the bird might be. That one might
>lend itself well to a tight vertical composition, cutting off any hints of what
>that canvas cover belongs to, but still keeping it in the shot. While I've not
>loaded it into an editor to try it, it might even survive a tight enough
>cropping to cut off a whole right portion of the gull, to provide a nice
>asymmetric balance and tension between the whites in the image. Definitely keep
>that distant sail in it, two things carried by the wind. That has to stay in the
>image I've found that with wildlife photography some of the best I've done
>doesn't often include the whole animal. Many times just a hint of what it must
>and should be suffices and keeps the viewers' attention. It's hard to present
>any well-known animals in new and interesting ways. That can often help for
>composition options and, when done, gives the viewer's mind something to do. Its
>best if your image doesn't immediately answer all their questions. (a fog
>shrouded bridge for example)
>
>Something to consider.
I considered tight crops, notably this one:
<http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030792filtereddb0.jpg>
I like it, but didn't find it compelling.
Here's something like you suggested:
<http://img511.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030792filteredsi1.jpg>
Not quite as tight a crop as you suggested, but I like the balance.
Overall I like it better than my crop, and I thank you for the
suggestion.
What do you think?
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 06:28:17 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>I considered tight crops, notably this one:
><http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030792filtereddb0.jpg>
>I like it, but didn't find it compelling.
>
>Here's something like you suggested:
><http://img511.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030792filteredsi1.jpg>
>Not quite as tight a crop as you suggested, but I like the balance.
>Overall I like it better than my crop, and I thank you for the
>suggestion.
>
>What do you think?
>
>
Well, between then and now I actually tried a few ways to use a strong vertical
crop on that flying gull & distant sailboat one. But try as I might I couldn't
get the effect I had hoped for when first seeing it. I came close, but no
expensive cigar-prize was to be had. Framing and printing might make a
difference though. Sometimes "iffy" ones are difficult to visualize without the
accessory package. So I think the crop that you did here on that one is about
the best that can be hoped for. I would have shifted the bird a little more to
the right and added a bit more empty to the left, just for the more pleasing
golden-mean, but all in all I think what you did is the best you'll get out of
it. It's not going to be the "wow" art-piece that I first thought I saw slowly
scroll by while loading on my monitor, but it's a nice shot, that, with the
right frame could look nice on any den wall.
The closer crop, sans sailboat, works well too. The shape of the bird alone
lending itself well to hold the composition. It could even use a little more
taken off from the top, to give the bird more air beneath it (its wings pushing
down into that needed space). Plus the bird is looking down. When more centered
top to bottom, as it is, it might be looking out of the frame, rather than into
it. I always think of the subject and its impending action, seeing if I can fit
the space they need for that action into the framing.
Now that I look at it again, yes, more taken off the top. The finer structure of
the more distant water is a distraction from the structures of and around the
bird, they don't fit in with what's happening and pull your eye away from it.
But I think it really requires that distant sail for a more long-lasting image.
Gives it more depth and balance.
A nice exercise in learning the impact of composition. It's impact can be huge.
It can easily make or break a photo (as you probably well know).
One time during photographing a total lunar eclipse a jet passed nearby through
the exposure. The lights leaving an interesting double-trail of colored dots and
dashes a short distance from the moon. It became a favorite photo to teach
composition to others. Depending on how the angle of those trails aligned with
the framing, square crop or rectangular, or if the moon was above or below the
jet's trails, left or right of them, made all the difference on if it was
pleasing to look at or just another humdrum eclipse shot. Just two simple
geometric elements to deal with but when cropped and composed properly it became
worth printing.
This is also a good example of how the subject structure is bold enough that
pixels won't matter when printed. The important crisply defined detail is there
in the beak and legs where needed. The stronger colors of them drawing your eye
to look more closely. The blur of the wings also conveying just the right amount
of motion so the image is not static and lifeless. Let the tecnhophiles admire
their dots in the uninteresting areas, it's all they'll ever have or understand.
Those who are looking for more out of their photography and life will never see
them in a photo like this.
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 06:28:17 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<4tu4k3prutjt18017rncg77phehk4m5cr9@4ax.com>:
>I considered tight crops, notably this one:
><http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030792filtereddb0.jpg>
>I like it, but didn't find it compelling.
>
>Here's something like you suggested:
><http://img511.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030792filteredsi1.jpg>
>Not quite as tight a crop as you suggested, but I like the balance.
>Overall I like it better than my crop, and I thank you for the
>suggestion.
>
>What do you think?
My first crops were accidentally resized up. These are just crops.
I considered some tight crops, notably:
<http://img253.imageshack.us/my.php?image=52772082mj1.jpg>
I like it, but didn't find it compelling.
A bit different:
<http://img253.imageshack.us/my.php?image=43924780de0.jpg>
Not quite as tight a crop, but I like the balance better.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:09:53 GMT, Art C. Ritique <nomail@spamnot.net>
wrote in <hkf5k3pop3o2m9c91c3ujdl7qnbh3dgn8e@4ax.com>:
>The closer crop, sans sailboat, works well too. The shape of the bird alone
>lending itself well to hold the composition. It could even use a little more
>taken off from the top, to give the bird more air beneath it (its wings pushing
>down into that needed space). Plus the bird is looking down. When more centered
>top to bottom, as it is, it might be looking out of the frame, rather than into
>it. I always think of the subject and its impending action, seeing if I can fit
>the space they need for that action into the framing.
Personally I like the rising effect of having the bird a bit low in the
image, which I think matches the hunched look of the bird.
There's very little more space below the bird -- pushing down much would
put the life preserver in the image, which I think would be distracting.
>This is also a good example of how the subject structure is bold enough that
>pixels won't matter when printed. The important crisply defined detail is there
>in the beak and legs where needed. The stronger colors of them drawing your eye
>to look more closely. The blur of the wings also conveying just the right amount
>of motion so the image is not static and lifeless. Let the tecnhophiles admire
>their dots in the uninteresting areas, it's all they'll ever have or understand.
>Those who are looking for more out of their photography and life will never see
>them in a photo like this.
So true.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
In article <kqs4k3tql80j489tiotf299nrp2f889n1r@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >It looks like you know as much about photography as you do about
> >Motorola cell phone chargers.
>
> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
> difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
> boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
Fact remains - you don't know **** about cell phone chargers and
photography.
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:33:52 -0800, "Mr. Strat"
<rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in
<201120070833520427%rag@nospam.techline.com>:
>In article <kqs4k3tql80j489tiotf299nrp2f889n1r@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >It looks like you know as much about photography as you do about
>> >Motorola cell phone chargers.
>>
>> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
>> difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
>> boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
>
>Fact remains - you don't know **** about cell phone chargers and
>photography.
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]
Catching the Perfect Moment... 
Linear Mode
