★ Wed C&C (No Theme) Thread, Ed. 115, June/23/2010 ★

Thanks all for taking the time to comment! I really appreciate it, because I'm going to include this shot in the album I'm making for the b&g.

Following up on your suggestions, I used just a bit more fill light to better define the girls' faces, though I couldn't do too much more because the E-510 starts banding in the shadows if you push it too hard at ISO 800. I also cropped a little bit away from the right, but again not too much because I wanter to keep the woman in the background - she's the maid of honour, sitting next to the bride.

On the composition: I have several versions of this, but this is the only one with both girls' faces turned round. I was watching them, praying they would turn around together so I could get the photo I wanted. They did, but the best man in the meantime didn't quite cooperate as much. In other shots, he's more in between the girls, and the both the b&g are discernible in the background - but the girls have their backs to the camera. Sigh.

Btw, I'd pushed my chair far out into the main aisle between the rows of tables for this. A bit more would've eliminated that chair on the right... hindsight is 20/20.

Finally, I posted some more wedding pics in a separate thread http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=35642915 ; I think it's worth a look, because there are some truly great photos posted by other non-pro wedding photographers!

Cheers
Christa

PS. Claus, of course malfunctioning isn't the realm of Canons, nor is shooting in "auto" mode To be honest, one thing did bother me about being asked to shoot with that other DSLR, and it was neither the faulty battery nor the brand, but rather the big array of AF points! The Canon had many more than my E-510, and I just couldn't figure out which one would be used for focusing. I was overwhelmed by the 7 or 11 AF points of this other DSLR! How can you shoot a portrait when you can't define the focus point?!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ch_cnb/

That's it, folks : this is the "48 Hours Time Limit" (more or less).

If you still feel like leaving more feedback for another image, feel free to do so (particularly if you have not yet done it).

Or maybe you can (group-) reply to the feedback you have gotten. This could include a new version of your image, taking on board the comments received.

But save your new images for next week's thread , because feedback on new images this week is no longer guaranteed once the Time Limit is posted.

Note: this is not a random "rule" to annoy people. The fact of the matter is that this thread is moderately to very busy during two days, and then it cools down. So if you post late, you run the risk of being disappointed by the lack of feedback.

Images posted until this minute will still get feedback, if maybe only from me and maybe not today or tomorrow, but later.

Thanks, Claus.

--

... when the photograph annihilates itself as medium to be no longer a sign but the thing itself...

The reflected lights are interesting, and I don't mind the blur of the static subjects (because of the contrast with the perceived sharpness in the reflection).

But I feel the main subject is not separated enough from the water : the woman seems to be blending into the background. I'm sure some clever PP trick with selective brightening or something like that, can fix that.
--
Roel Hendrickx

lots of images : http://www.roelh.zenfolio.com

my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

The image taken by itself is a rather serene urban (or suburban, or rural, I'm not sure) still-life.
But the title gives it post-apocalyptic and morbid dimensions (and pretentions).

In order to enhance that some more, a more gritty and contrasty processing could be applied, I feel.
Unless I am reading too much into it.

--
Roel Hendrickx

lots of images : http://www.roelh.zenfolio.com

my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

The main difference, I think, is in the border.

(Maybe there are many other subtle differences, but I am probably too superficial to notice them.
Frankly I think the "special border" does not add much.

In fact, I think it comes across as a sign of uncertitude. Like in : "this image is supposed to be creepy but I am not sure it is creepy enough, so that is why I added the border to make sure you get the creepiness" .

And the effect is that the viewer is forced into looking at the picture in that one-dimensional way.

The first version, with the normal border, is plenty enough creepy, for those that would be so inclined.

But it can also give another impression, with the three layers of colours (that come across more effectively without the border stealing the highlights).

That bird's wing can also be seen as a thing of beauty (past).

In short : the second version imposes an interpretation and the first leaves more freedom. That is why I prefer the first.

--
Roel Hendrickx

lots of images : http://www.roelh.zenfolio.com

my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Good! A pile of rotting twine can be interesting subject matters for others as well. Also it is apparent that it is not technically perfect.

Perhaps there is a truth hiding in here? Something about knowing how to produce a technically good photo - and sometimes choosing not to... Someone said this about screening for actresses - it is the blemish that elevates from good looking to beautiful.

Thanks for the comments and thoughts,
brent

I don't know where that came from, but that was what crossed my mind upon seeing your dandelion.
The mind works in mysterious ways.
So your image got my mind to work. Good.

Technically : no comments.

--
Roel Hendrickx

lots of images : http://www.roelh.zenfolio.com

my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

RoelHendrickx said:

The main difference, I think, is in the border.

(Maybe there are many other subtle differences, but I am probably too superficial to notice them.
Frankly I think the "special border" does not add much.

In fact, I think it comes across as a sign of uncertitude. Like in : "this image is supposed to be creepy but I am not sure it is creepy enough, so that is why I added the border to make sure you get the creepiness" .

And the effect is that the viewer is forced into looking at the picture in that one-dimensional way.

The first version, with the normal border, is plenty enough creepy, for those that would be so inclined.

But it can also give another impression, with the three layers of colours (that come across more effectively without the border stealing the highlights).

That bird's wing can also be seen as a thing of beauty (past).

In short : the second version imposes an interpretation and the first leaves more freedom. That is why I prefer the first.

--
Roel Hendrickx

lots of images : http://www.roelh.zenfolio.com

my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Click to expand...

Thanks Roel. I agree with your assessment and prefer the borderless version myself. I get some feedback from some people who feel some of my photos would be more effective if I did more manipulation. But I'm still of the "less is more" school and unless I take a shot specifically to do some true "digital art" I find I stick with a simple border process I use sometimes, if at all.

--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

I dunno ... while there's obviously uses for this lens, as you've shown in the past, I think you may be overusing it a bit. In this shot in particular I think a more traditional perspective might have been better.

Could be just me, though (probably is, I haven't read any of the other comments yet).

Other than that I like the blur effect, but I do think it might have been better to have the non-moving parts less blurred (which would have meant getting rid of the man in the foreground);
--
Mithandir,
Eternal Amateur
http://www.shooting43.com/

Unless stated differently, any image I post is licensed under CC-by-nc

It's always fun to see some of these inbetween, unplanned shots. I've taken my fair share of them during my recent studio endeavors. I've found that showing these shots to people can loosen them up considerably, which results in less stilted pictures after.
--
Mithandir,
Eternal Amateur
http://www.shooting43.com/

Unless stated differently, any image I post is licensed under CC-by-nc

Yes I love that fisheye.
The lens is always looking to attract attention, so that fits me just fine.

Mithandir said:

I dunno ... while there's obviously uses for this lens, as you've shown in the past, I think you may be overusing it a bit. In this shot in particular I think a more traditional perspective might have been better.

Click to expand...

Two reasons why not :

• FE was mounted on the camera and guy was packing up to leave.
• I needed the wide angle to get the moving ride and the rest in the shot (and I did not bring the ZD7-14).

Mithandir said:

Could be just me, though (probably is, I haven't read any of the other comments yet).

Other than that I like the blur effect, but I do think it might have been better to have the non-moving parts less blurred (which would have meant getting rid of the man in the foreground);

Click to expand...

Ah, we differ in opinion here : the moving ride itself would just be boring to me. I think the person is essential.

Mithandir said:

--
Mithandir,
Eternal Amateur
http://www.shooting43.com/

Unless stated differently, any image I post is licensed under CC-by-nc

Click to expand...

--
Roel Hendrickx

lots of images : http://www.roelh.zenfolio.com

my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Hey Christa,

A wonderful shot of some very cute girls, but I do have some remarks.

See, I'm slightly bothered by the composition. My eyes go first to the woman's head in the background, which is out of focus (as it would be, of course). Next up is the best man, also just a head and also out of focus. Only then do I find the girls, and after those two people THEY seem a bit blurred as well. if I look away, however, and back at them, they look much sharper.

Now, your chosen title compounds this: it makes em think the best man is important, but you can barely see him!

My suggestion: tell the people to redo the wedding, and then move a bit more to the left and a bit lower down so that the best man shows between the girls.

Failing that, maybe some radical crops and retitling. I considered a crop of just their faces (something like 16:9 or 2.35:1), but then you'd have a lot of emptiness between them.

Maybe a square crop (losing the left and centering the girls) and then converting to B&W to stop the purple from pulling the eyes?

Just some suggestions.

--
Mithandir,
Eternal Amateur
http://www.shooting43.com/

Unless stated differently, any image I post is licensed under CC-by-nc

I dunno ...

I definitely know what you mean and I do get that eery feeling ... but very very faintly and I have to concentrate on it. if I don't, it just turns into a bunch of rope.

Have you considered converting your B&W into a B&R?
--
Mithandir,
Eternal Amateur
http://www.shooting43.com/

Unless stated differently, any image I post is licensed under CC-by-nc

Why ISO 1600? You're at 1/1000s there at f/10 and at 114mm it's not like camera shake is going to be too big an issue. Now in this case it's a nice flower where the denoising blur might actually create a nice and soft and pleasing result, but for that you're losing some DR.

Other than that it's a very nice picture, though I'd have liked to see a bit more contrast between the back petal of the closer flower and the front petals of the one behind it.
--
Mithandir,
Eternal Amateur
http://www.shooting43.com/

Unless stated differently, any image I post is licensed under CC-by-nc

This is not a picture. This is a statement. And a statement like this needs a title, to make it clear what is being said.

I am curious: did you not title this to force the viewer to make his own? A sort of psychological test of the watcher, making us confront our very souls to find an answer to a lingering question? A floral Rorschach test?

Or did you just forget?
--
Mithandir,
Eternal Amateur
http://www.shooting43.com/

Unless stated differently, any image I post is licensed under CC-by-nc

I made my C&C only after most people had already done their group replies, my apologies.
--
Mithandir,
Eternal Amateur
http://www.shooting43.com/

Unless stated differently, any image I post is licensed under CC-by-nc

... and, as always, your comments are appreciated!

See you here next week

Regards,

Claus.

--

... when the photograph annihilates itself as medium to be no longer a sign but the thing itself...

Mithandir said:

Cthulhu rising

Click to expand...

Mithandir what does the title mean to you? I am unfamiliar with this.

Mithandir said:

I dunno ...

I definitely know what you mean and I do get that eery feeling ... but very very faintly and I have to concentrate on it. if I don't, it just turns into a bunch of rope.

Click to expand...

OK. I can understand that maybe I have just hit a corner and really need to work it.

Mithandir said:

Have you considered converting your B&W into a B&R?

Click to expand...

I am at work and played with it a bit. I tried blurring the foreground and leaving the sharper detail - that has some interesting effects, it also did weird things to the gradient map. Here is a gradient map in red w/o the blur:



Thanks for the push,
brent

Mithandir said:

--
Mithandir,
Eternal Amateur
http://www.shooting43.com/

Unless stated differently, any image I post is licensed under CC-by-nc

Click to expand...

--
Thanks,
brent

http://lossing.zenfolio.com/

) the answer is YES to second question. feel free to take it as a flower, as a nature or symbolic picture. same with the name.

thank you for comment!

thank you Roel. appreciate your comment.