/ Views on a Photo

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The Bantam on 04 Oct 2012
Took this at the weekend:

https://www.dropbox.com/lightbox/home/Photos?select=20120923-October-11324-XL.jpg

Really can't work out whether I like it or not. Something doesn't quite feel right with it - I think with the composition. Would really appreciate your thoughts - everyday is a school day and all...
Stuart Wildman - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to The Bantam: You have to sign in/up to see it. Maybe that's why you have a low number of reviews on the views of your photo.
The Bantam on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Stuart Wildman:

Hmmmm... dropbox not playing ball today. Try this:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aadf2fvhu59sr8b/20120923-October-11324-XL.jpg
In reply to The Bantam:

The wide diagonal purple stripe doesn't really help.


Chris
Fraser on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Chris Craggs:

...and I'm not convinced it's as sharp as it could be. But I like the 'floating' feel of it.
Blue Straggler - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to The Bantam:
As Chris says, the purple stripe is distracting as is the bright triangle in top left. There is too much going on (INCLUDING the bokeh) that is not cobweb so it is a distracting muddle. It looks like something I might take as a test shot playing with a new retro camera to see where the close focus lies.

as I am bored at lunchtime and stuck on a crossword, I took a massive liberty and edited down your photo exactly as I would have done had it been one of mine, I hope you don't mind. I put it on flickr and am happy to credit you by name if your like, or to delete it if you think I have overstepped a mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-straggler/8053433624/in/photostream
Gordon Stainforth - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I've been naughty with it too. I thought the colour was important, but did my best to get rid of the purple band, plus played with the colour and levels, and cropped a bit. Kept vertical, because that's how it was in nature, and the slight convex shape of the web is probably being caused by a breeze from the left.

http://www.gordonstainforth.co.uk/images/photobyTheBantam.jpg
wee jamie on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Oh good! I'm not the only one who edits other people's pics, ha
Gordon Stainforth - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

oh, and I filled in the light patch top left.
Blue Straggler - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> oh, and I filled in the light patch top left.

I know you've cropped but have you also used a bit of cloning to fill in what was left of that bright patch?
Gordon Stainforth - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Yes, copied a few bits of the background then did a bit of cloning with the rubber stamp to disguise repetition.
Blue Straggler - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Is that not at odds with your earlier statement about keeping it vertical "because that's how it was in nature"? See, I rotated the image because I was deliberately trying to make it LESS like it is in nature, to make it a bit "abstract", yet I religiously avoided use of the clone tool :-)

Guess everyone has a different set of rules, which makes for good variety I suppose.
The Bantam on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Blue Straggler and Gordon Stainforth:

Thanks guys - great feedback, and nice edits!

The bright patch irritated me too, but I am not sufficiently skilled in the Dark Arts to remove it. Blue Strangler, I like the rotation - I think that was what was bugging me the most, as the wind was blowing the web it 'faced' the wrong way.

I think generally I agree more with Gordon that it should be the way up it is in nature, but the spin does better highlight the originals (many) short-comings. The cloning though I am more comfortable with - I didn't see that when I composed the shot, even if it was there when I pressed the button (I think it is Wharfedale mist!).

Rich
Gordon Stainforth - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I agree my rules about this are somewhat arbitrary. I think it's perfectly OK to edit out something distracting in a shot (e.g a piece of litter) that is entirely contingent. Cloning a bit more of the bush in the background I regard as entirely legitimate because it doesn't change anything in essence - it's mostly a perspective/viewpoint/focal length issue. Bantam has admitted that he didn't notice the sky when he took the picture and would have framed it differently if he had, e.g. taken it a from a very slightly higher viewpoint. I feel much less happy about tipping it through 90 degrees for the reason I gave before: I don't think it would look like that with the effect of gravity. Also, out of respect for the dear old spider who had after all constructed it in a vertical plane.
Gordon Stainforth - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Sorry, didn't answer the last part of what you said. Yes, of course it is all a matter of what you're setting out to do. You're setting out to produce an abstract shot - fine, none of what I have said above is relevant. I simply happen to be fascinated always by nature as it is i.e. the creativity inherent in nature. I don't regard photography as being much more than selecting a subject/image/viewpoint, then a lens to suit, (then depth of field if camera gives you that option), and then releasing the shutter.
Blue Straggler - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Cheers Gordon. Yeah I do the occasional 90 degree rotation just because I like the result too, not necessarily because I set out to make an abstract. e.g. these pillars in Barcelona were a bit boring vertical so I made them into rollers. I don't do it much and rarely set out to do so, it's just when going through a set of pics sometimes an idea comes to me.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-straggler/1348709610/


I know that gets away from the "nature" aspect.

with the cobweb I was thinking that with a bit of planning you could make one look like a jellyfish. I try the occasional trick-of-the-eye, all in-camera of course apart from cropping and level-tweaking :-)
Gordon Stainforth - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Blue Straggler:

That is a very interesting shot, one of the best of yours of seen. And I would never have guessed they were pillars. Perhaps you see the world on its side a lot of the time? :))
Enty - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to The Bantam:

It's blurred - in photos like that you need to see each individual droplet crystal clear.

E
Gordon Stainforth - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Enty:

I agree with that assessment. Plus the depth of field is not quite great enough - it's irritating to have the front and back of the net going out of focus. It would be much more effective if the whole net stood out in sharp focus against the out of focus background (ideally even softer, requiring a longer lens).
icnoble on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Enty)
>
> I agree with that assessment. Plus the depth of field is not quite great enough - it's irritating to have the front and back of the net going out of focus. It would be much more effective if the whole net stood out in sharp focus against the out of focus background (ideally even softer, requiring a longer lens).

Its a web :)

ads.ukclimbing.com
Gordon Stainforth - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to icnoble:

Oh, yes .. speaking like a hack photographer rather than a naturalist ... What's the emoticon for 'hangs head in shame'?
Gordon Stainforth - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to icnoble:

Reminds me a bit of the film industry. You can hear one of the sparks or gaffers shouting, 'OK, lads, break for a half, the next scene's the spider's net!' (With a London accent, of course.)
dixmarra - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to The Bantam)
>
> It's blurred - in photos like that you need to see each individual droplet crystal clear.
>
> E

couple of my efforts
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35512950@N06/7704828398/in/photostream


http://www.flickr.com/photos/35512950@N06/7704808110/in/photostream
Blue Straggler - on 05 Oct 2012
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to The Bantam)
>
> It's blurred - in photos like that you need to see each individual droplet crystal clear.
>
Yes of course that should have been obvious to anyone. I didn't mention it as I was trying to be constructive ;-) and I thought (generously) that the blurring may have been a compress-for-web artefact (I've noticed this happen when uploading to Facebook).
Of course a proper retro 4-point star filter is what you REALLY want on the droplets, then blurring doesn't matter!

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.