From the Paragon deck at the Claremont Resort & Spa, Berkeley
<http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030840filteredkl8.jpg>
<http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030845filteredob8.jpg>
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
John Navas wrote:
> From the Paragon deck at the Claremont Resort & Spa, Berkeley
> <http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030840filteredkl8.jpg>
> <http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030845filteredob8.jpg>
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:27:29 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>From the Paragon deck at the Claremont Resort & Spa, Berkeley
><http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030840filteredkl8.jpg>
><http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030845filteredob8.jpg>
The fist one I like, but I'm not sure why. It's a little too close to
stock-photography for my tastes. I don't like those parking lot lights. So I
visualized the image without them (it would be easy to clone them out if
needed). When I thought how it would look without them it became even more like
stock photography and I liked it less. But I don't like the lights there. But
without them then I don't like the photo! But I like the photo! But I don't like
those lights there! But if I remove them then I don't like the photo!
See my problem?
The parking-lot lights remind me of those cartoon-eyes that pop up in the forest
while Bugs-Bunny and friends are sitting around the campfire and Elmer Fudd
grabs his gun. They see those eyes all over the place, creepily staring at them
from beyond the light of the campfire. The lights even slanted like those
evil-in-the-woods cartoon-eyes. (Maybe this is a personal association, I had
that happen to me one time while snorkeling about 25 ft. deep into a large dark
cavern inside a coral reef. I really got the creeps when I saw all these large
eyes suddenly start to appear from all the dark recesses in the coral
structures, just huge eyes, everywhere, just st-st-st-staring at me. I got the
hell outta there. ****, it still gives me the goose-bumps. )
p.s. Composition might have been a little nicer if the sun was shifted a tad
more into the frame, without cutting off anything from the right. Call Houdini.
And I'm not too crazy about a horizon cutting an image in exact halves unless
for something really unique. If you tried to crop for that with this photo then
you'd lose the needed graduation in the sky, or those lights, if you lost the
lights then we're back to my original problem. "Dilemma" could be a good title.
Latent last-minute critique: More "eyes", less sky, sun more inside, keep the
right side. It needs a redo in the camera. Slightly wider angle and swing the
camera a bit down and to the left, same exposure, you'da had it.
The second one is "okay" but again, too stock-photography for my tastes, and the
50% horizon isn't justified. Most sunsets rely on majestic or interesting cloud
formations and compositional use of many colors. When I read the thread title I
was expecting to see that. I was surprised that neither had any of that but they
were still okay to look at (one more so, the other more of an, "ehh"). So maybe
there's something to be said for minimalism in sunsets. This makes me take pause
to think of trying minimalism for sunsets more often. I only managed to pull it
off once with an important silhouette. I'm never too fond of any urban
photography, so that might have a bit to do with my opines too.
(only 64 more 30+megs each e-books to go and I'll have some of my dial-up
bandwidth back again)
Art C. Ritique wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:27:29 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>From the Paragon deck at the Claremont Resort & Spa, Berkeley
>> <http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030840filteredkl8.jpg>
>> <http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030845filteredob8.jpg>
>
> The fist one I like, but I'm not sure why. It's a little too close to
> stock-photography for my tastes. I don't like those parking lot lights. So I
> visualized the image without them (it would be easy to clone them out if
> needed). When I thought how it would look without them it became even more like
> stock photography and I liked it less. But I don't like the lights there. But
> without them then I don't like the photo! But I like the photo! But I don't like
> those lights there! But if I remove them then I don't like the photo!
>
> See my problem?
If you're taking a photo of SF, you should hop on the Bay Bridge and get
off on Treasure Island. The road takes you right to a parking area where
you can set up and get perfect shots. (Well, perfect angle anyway. I
tend to waste too much time and get to my spot after the best of the
light is gone.)
These are much better than the crap Navas pumped out. But then, crap is
his middle name. I was in San Francisco over the Labor Day weekend last
year, and we went to Treasure Island. It was your typical SF overcast
day, so the view wasn't that great, but I know the spot you're talking
about. I like the night shot.
Mr. Strat wrote:
> In article <M6WdneyCCsxtAtnanZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> , Cynicor
> <j...tru.p..in@sp.eake.a.sy.net> wrote:
>
>> If you're taking a photo of SF, you should hop on the Bay Bridge and get
>> off on Treasure Island. The road takes you right to a parking area where
>> you can set up and get perfect shots. (Well, perfect angle anyway. I
>> tend to waste too much time and get to my spot after the best of the
>> light is gone.)
>>
>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/94...#60120638-A-LB
>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/94...137669217-A-LB
>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/94...137590748-A-LB
>>
>> The last two were taken with ND grad and polarizer.
>
> These are much better than the crap Navas pumped out. But then, crap is
> his middle name.
He should've sprung for a DSLR. (shrug)
> I was in San Francisco over the Labor Day weekend last
> year, and we went to Treasure Island. It was your typical SF overcast
> day, so the view wasn't that great, but I know the spot you're talking
> about. I like the night shot.
The only problem with this one is that if you view it at 100%, you can
see the D200 banding problems over the moon. And also, I oversharpened
it so it looks noisy up close.
> Art C. Ritique wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:27:29 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From the Paragon deck at the Claremont Resort & Spa, Berkeley
>>> <http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030840filteredkl8.jpg>
>>> <http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030845filteredob8.jpg>
>>
>> The fist one I like, but I'm not sure why. It's a little too close to
>> stock-photography for my tastes. I don't like those parking lot lights. So I
>> visualized the image without them (it would be easy to clone them out if
>> needed). When I thought how it would look without them it became even more
>> like
>> stock photography and I liked it less. But I don't like the lights there. But
>> without them then I don't like the photo! But I like the photo! But I don't
>> like
>> those lights there! But if I remove them then I don't like the photo!
>>
>> See my problem?
>
> If you're taking a photo of SF, you should hop on the Bay Bridge and get
> off on Treasure Island. The road takes you right to a parking area where
> you can set up and get perfect shots. (Well, perfect angle anyway. I
> tend to waste too much time and get to my spot after the best of the
> light is gone.)
>
> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/94...#60120638-A-LB
> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/94...137669217-A-LB
> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/94...137590748-A-LB
>
> The last two were taken with ND grad and polarizer.
Nice work!
On Nov 21, 1:27 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> From the Paragon deck at the Claremont Resort & Spa, Berkeley
> <http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030840filteredkl8.jpg>
> <http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030845filteredob8.jpg>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas
> Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
I appreciate your effort to post photos for review/comment/criticism
in an attempt to improve your photography. So generally I don't
comment on pictures because I don't like to discourage people. But I
just can't get over the brownness of the pictures -- not red or yellow
or orange, but brown. You need to do something about it because it
just leaves me looking at them and saying "OMG, how much smog is there
in that city".
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 08:57:12 -0800 (PST), Pat <groups@artisticphotography.us>
wrote:
>On Nov 21, 1:27 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> From the Paragon deck at the Claremont Resort & Spa, Berkeley
>> <http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030840filteredkl8.jpg>
>> <http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030845filteredob8.jpg>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> John Navas
>> Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
>
>I appreciate your effort to post photos for review/comment/criticism
>in an attempt to improve your photography. So generally I don't
>comment on pictures because I don't like to discourage people. But I
>just can't get over the brownness of the pictures -- not red or yellow
>or orange, but brown. You need to do something about it because it
>just leaves me looking at them and saying "OMG, how much smog is there
>in that city".
>
>So, because I criticized your sunset I'll post one of my own so you
>can tear it apart:
>http://www.artisticphotography.us/NYC_Skyline/
Uh oh, someone is in dire need of monitor adjustment.
If you have a PC, try this graphic (display it at 1:1 resolution)
San Francisco Sunset 
Linear Mode
