Reading mode: Light Dark

A few more E-PL1 Shots

Go to last post
L

lebob

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
265
Reaction score
12
Location
K.R.E.V., US
I'm getting a little better handling the camera and lens. Here are some samples with the Cosimicar 25mm F/1.4. Comments and criticism are welcomed.







 
Awesome photos. Just purchased the e-pl1. Still experimenting and learning.

Took this shot at ISO 1600. No PP



 
Based on the comments, I am definitely not understanding something. I was liking the photos for the textures and blur, thinking those elements made the photos look painterly and that painterly in a photo is or can be good.

I do not understand. Why do the photos need to be sharper or more focused? What is wrong with the out of focus areas? I looked at the example, but am still confused.

Thanks
 
i really like it. thumbs up!

cheers
radix
 
I was inspired by this painting when I took the images. I honestly thought I was doing something similar as much as possible in my own way with paint textures and color contrasts.

 
Softness and diffusion can be very effective tools if done correctly. The first image was okay, but something just nagged at me. As I looked at the rest, I found what bothered me. I wasn't just seeing soft focus but there is motion blur on all the images.

While others may differ, motion blur just leaves me with a queasy sensation. It is not the same as a proper diffusion or soft focus effect.

You've got a lot of potential here, but the motion blur has to go. With that lens, get yourself a nice mild diffusion/soft focus filter and then keep the shutter speed up or use a tripod. You'll get the painterly effect in a very beautiful way without the uneasiness.

--
David
Galleries: http://dwrobinson.zenfolio.com
Blog: http://web.me.com/brdavid
 
I think your shots are great,definitely artistic with really good geometry actually better than most "snapshot" pictures around the forum. I had to register to post because i felt the comments before this were really off the mark, they were too pedantic on what is commonly accepted as "good bokeh" and not seeing the whole picture. In fact i think the bokeh for this glass blends really well with your composition of those flowers.

Again, I have to add, I really don't know the rule for what constitutes a GOOD photograph. If you leave what most people define as good photography aside, those pictures are actually aesthetically pleasing; of course if that ignores some golden rule for photography, then its just too bad.
 
I like the concept. I like the mood created by the contrasting colors and soft textures. Forget the sharpness.

Are these cropped? Would have liked a wider FOV to bring in a bit more background. The flowers are a bit too dominant or "in your face" IMO.

Nice work.
 
David247 said:
Softness and diffusion can be very effective tools if done correctly. The first image was okay, but something just nagged at me. As I looked at the rest, I found what bothered me. I wasn't just seeing soft focus but there is motion blur on all the images.
Click to expand...
Sounds like excellent technical advice. It's also useful to consider what aesthetic effects the bokeh (blur) has. I would sharply distinguish 1-3 on the one hand, from 4. In the later the combination of light and distance gives the bokeh a transparent effect--the flowers are floating in water. Very nice.

Mark
 
The circular blur is from the lens. I actually bought the lens intending to exploit the blur. I saw some French videos using the lens with a GH1 and thought they were cool. Not sure what I'll use it for yet, maybe an image inspired by the writtings of Dostoevsky or William Burroughs, whatever. Think Edvard Munch, an earlty adopter of the radial blur.

 
I very much appreciate your sources of inspiration and the parallels you are trying to create between art, literature, photography. What subject matter would be best inspired by a Munch swirl? Thanks. Mark
 
I like your posts and your photography. These forums need people participation. Don't stop posting.

Also, generally speaking most of the comments you have received are with good intentions. Please don't take it personally. Photography, like art, will receive diverse opinions.
lebob said:
I'm getting a little better handling the camera and lens. Here are some samples with the Cosimicar 25mm F/1.4. Comments and criticism are welcomed.







Click to expand...
 
"What subject matter would be best inspired by a Munch swirl?" I am not qualified to answer that. I used that image as a example and a lightly layered response.

I like the compositional continuity of Munch's work. The linear elements and shape of the subject are repeated in the background. It creates a relationship between the form of the subject, compositional structure, and content. Based on my interest, I would develop an idea around the formal characteristics of that work. Although, I do appreciate Munch's work for more than just the formal elements. Early Modernism is where I go hunting for a lot of my ideas.

Thanks for the C&C
 
Cool!
 
The Holga look is something I like. I used one for a while about 10 years ago and still have it. I modified it a lot. I made the lens faster and modified it to use filters. I could control the exposure with ND filters. I also fooled around with alternative printing processes like cyanotype and Vandyke.

I bought and like the lens because it vignettes with soft focus like a Holga. The colors may be a bit warmer too. No art filters or Photoshop actions needed. The cinema lenses make these cameras like Holgas with much more control and the ability to shoot Holga video like this:

http://vimeo.com/8206569

Thanks
 
Keep in mind that if you solicit general feedback and you dont specify the look you were going for, the sharpness police on this forum will eat you up about how unsharp your lens is! Art is in the eye of the beholder, so I wont critique your artistic interpretation here, but I can tell that some basic principles are not present in most of these shots. The first and third have the most potential as the composition is good, but the bokeh is so distracting that it takes away from the overall effect. I'm no bokeh snob, but there is a reason why expensive lenses produce creamy blurred backgrounds. No matter how artistic it is, that harsh fuzzy background is an eyesore. A bit more depth of field may improve things a bit, not to mention more balanced exposure. Sharpness is not everything. Hope this helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top