A varied world

This might be more abstract one.

--
Mark H
"Life is worthy to photograph"

I don't like the part outlined in Red





It's too sharp, it's not organic, it doesn't mesh with the rest of the image. I don't like how it flows. It seems that it wouldn't naturally flow that way.

Macro guy said:

I don't like the part outlined in Red

It's too sharp, it's not organic, it doesn't mesh with the rest of the image. I don't like how it flows. It seems that it wouldn't naturally flow that way.

Click to expand...

Thank you Macro guy for your comment!

--
Mark H
"Life is worthy to photograph"

The flow is better, it's still too sharp though. Ease off on the sharpening tool and see where that takes you. If you look at the water and how it flows, the water isn't sharp because it flows, that blur is associated with movement. Here, you have that curve and the bit of the blur that starts the shape and that starts the flow and then all of a sudden, it becomes razor sharp. That's where the visual incongruity sets in. Either it moves or it's razor sharp. When you try to have both, the eye gets confused and doesn't follow the flow.

I'm not saying that the entire image has to be blurry, you can have a point of interest in sharp focus, but the lines leading to that sharp focus have to gradually sharpen up and then gradually blur as they leave that point of interest.

I hope that makes sense.

Macro guy said:

The flow is better, it's still too sharp though. Ease off on the sharpening tool and see where that takes you. If you look at the water and how it flows, the water isn't sharp because it flows, that blur is associated with movement. Here, you have that curve and the bit of the blur that starts the shape and that starts the flow and then all of a sudden, it becomes razor sharp. That's where the visual incongruity sets in. Either it moves or it's razor sharp. When you try to have both, the eye gets confused and doesn't follow the flow.

I'm not saying that the entire image has to be blurry, you can have a point of interest in sharp focus, but the lines leading to that sharp focus have to gradually sharpen up and then gradually blur as they leave that point of interest.

I hope that makes sense.

Click to expand...

Thank you Macro guy for your informative comment!

Macro guy said:

The flow is better, it's still too sharp though. Ease off on the sharpening tool and see where that takes you. If you look at the water and how it flows, the water isn't sharp because it flows, that blur is associated with movement. Here, you have that curve and the bit of the blur that starts the shape and that starts the flow and then all of a sudden, it becomes razor sharp. That's where the visual incongruity sets in. Either it moves or it's razor sharp. When you try to have both, the eye gets confused and doesn't follow the flow.

I'm not saying that the entire image has to be blurry, you can have a point of interest in sharp focus, but the lines leading to that sharp focus have to gradually sharpen up and then gradually blur as they leave that point of interest.

I hope that makes sense.

Click to expand...

Here's what I mean:







The flow blurs and then gradually comes into focus at the point of interest. If you keep the flowing line sharp, the eye stops right there as though that's the main point of interest.

Macro guy said:

Macro guy said:

The flow is better, it's still too sharp though. Ease off on the sharpening tool and see where that takes you. If you look at the water and how it flows, the water isn't sharp because it flows, that blur is associated with movement. Here, you have that curve and the bit of the blur that starts the shape and that starts the flow and then all of a sudden, it becomes razor sharp. That's where the visual incongruity sets in. Either it moves or it's razor sharp. When you try to have both, the eye gets confused and doesn't follow the flow.

I'm not saying that the entire image has to be blurry, you can have a point of interest in sharp focus, but the lines leading to that sharp focus have to gradually sharpen up and then gradually blur as they leave that point of interest.

I hope that makes sense.

Click to expand...

Here's what I mean:

The flow blurs and then gradually comes into focus at the point of interest. If you keep the flowing line sharp, the eye stops right there as though that's the main point of interest.

Click to expand...

I see what you mean, it's OK. I meant that blurred part was part of the head, but like you meant it is part of body, and blurring makes better feeling of movement and makes the main point of interest to the head.

MarkHu said:

Macro guy said:

Macro guy said:

The flow is better, it's still too sharp though. Ease off on the sharpening tool and see where that takes you. If you look at the water and how it flows, the water isn't sharp because it flows, that blur is associated with movement. Here, you have that curve and the bit of the blur that starts the shape and that starts the flow and then all of a sudden, it becomes razor sharp. That's where the visual incongruity sets in. Either it moves or it's razor it sharp. When you try to have both, the eye gets confused and doesn't follow the flow.

I'm not saying that the entire image has to be blurry, you can have a point of interest in sharp focus, but the lines leading to that sharp focus have to gradually sharpen up and then gradually blur as they leave that point of interest.

I hope that makes sense.

Click to expand...

Here's what I mean:

The flow blurs and then gradually comes into focus at the point of interest. If you keep the flowing line sharp, the eye stops right there as though that's the main point of interest.

Click to expand...

I see what you mean, it's OK. I meant that blurred part was part of the head, but like you meant it is part of body, and blurring makes better feeling of movement and makes the main point of interest to the head.

Click to expand...

You can blur the head and leave the tail or part of the body sharp if that's what you want, just don't have BOTH of them sharp. The sharp part is the point of interest, that's where the eye is led to. So, you can decide which part is your point of interest and make that part sharp and leave the rest in the varying stages of blur.

--
Mark H
"Life is worthy to photograph"

I like this in as far as it has potential. The central composition bothers me as does so much negative space. Judicious cropping might make this shot a winner.

Macro guy said:

I like this in as far as it has potential. The central composition bothers me as does so much negative space. Judicious cropping might make this shot a winner.

Click to expand...

Thank you again for your comment!

Hi Mark,

I was wondering why I was so enamored with the first set you put out and less so with this one. It dawned on me that you're in your current set, you're more heavily relying on PhotoShop to produce the image, whereas in the previous set, the composition, the lighting, the image was done in camera. IMO, the more of the image you produce in camera, the easier it is to put the finishing touches in PS and have a winning image. When you're relying too heavily on PS, you're stuck with whatever lighting you have, and it's more difficult to change the composition. Furthermore, the closer to the final image you have in camera, the more "natural" the image is going to look in terms of zones of sharpness, etc.

Take a look at my gallery. My work is very similar to what you're trying to do. The images you'll see were done in camera. There's hardly any PS involved. I never had to contend with the flow being off because most of the stuff was done in camera and as such, it places certain limitations on you that force the images to seem closer to what the eye expects.

I hope this makes sense.

PS. If you're tired of me commenting on your work, let me know. I do it because I like it. I don't usually comment on work where I don't see any potential.

Macro guy said:

Hi Mark,

I was wondering why I was so enamored with the first set you put out and less so with this one. It dawned on me that you're in your current set, you're more heavily relying on PhotoShop to produce the image, whereas in the previous set, the composition, the lighting, the image was done in camera. IMO, the more of the image you produce in camera, the easier it is to put the finishing touches in PS and have a winning image. When you're relying too heavily on PS, you're stuck with whatever lighting you have, and it's more difficult to change the composition. Furthermore, the closer to the final image you have in camera, the more "natural" the image is going to look in terms of zones of sharpness, etc.

Take a look at my gallery. My work is very similar to what you're trying to do. The images you'll see were done in camera. There's hardly any PS involved. I never had to contend with the flow being off because most of the stuff was done in camera and as such, it places certain limitations on you that force the images to seem closer to what the eye expects.

I hope this makes sense.

PS. If you're tired of me commenting on your work, let me know. I do it because I like it. I don't usually comment on work where I don't see any potential.

Click to expand...

Macro guy

First, I like when you comment my pictures, I don't get tired. I try to learn to get better photos and pp-skills.

You have very nice abstract photos in your gallery. I understand what you mean. I want anyway to try something different (all the time :-D ) approach in pp for surreal and abstract pictures. That's why I used PhotoScape X (mostly Tiny Planet transformation) in pp. I alter original photos, more or less, without any clue what it will look like at the end point of process. So in some cases that final image doesn't resemble original at all. I like more of those pictures in first set too, and those "surreal" ones.

If you feel tired to comment every picture, I don't mind, I have got from your comment already very informative feedback, thank you for that.

I think I start to make different "projects", so not many of those Varied world pictures any more... let's see.

MarkHu said:

Macro guy said:

Hi Mark,

I was wondering why I was so enamored with the first set you put out and less so with this one. It dawned on me that you're in your current set, you're more heavily relying on PhotoShop to produce the image, whereas in the previous set, the composition, the lighting, the image was done in camera. IMO, the more of the image you produce in camera, the easier it is to put the finishing touches in PS and have a winning image. When you're relying too heavily on PS, you're stuck with whatever lighting you have, and it's more difficult to change the composition. Furthermore, the closer to the final image you have in camera, the more "natural" the image is going to look in terms of zones of sharpness, etc.

Take a look at my gallery. My work is very similar to what you're trying to do. The images you'll see were done in camera. There's hardly any PS involved. I never had to contend with the flow being off because most of the stuff was done in camera and as such, it places certain limitations on you that force the images to seem closer to what the eye expects.

I hope this makes sense.

PS. If you're tired of me commenting on your work, let me know. I do it because I like it. I don't usually comment on work where I don't see any potential.

Click to expand...

Macro guy

First, I like when you comment my pictures, I don't get tired. I try to learn to get better photos and pp-skills.

You have very nice abstract photos in your gallery. I understand what you mean. I want anyway to try something different (all the time :-D ) approach in pp for surreal and abstract pictures. That's why I used PhotoScape X (mostly Tiny Planet transformation) in pp. I alter original photos, more or less, without any clue what it will look like at the end point of process. So in some cases that final image doesn't resemble original at all. I like more of those pictures in first set too, and those "surreal" ones.

If you feel tired to comment every picture, I don't mind, I have got from your comment already very informative feedback, thank you for that.

I think I start to make different "projects", so not many of those Varied world pictures any more... let's see.

Click to expand...

Hi Mark,

I don't get tired of commenting. I like exchanging ideas about the art side of photography, rather than the technical aspect, so I'm quite in my element here.

I appreciate your approach and especially trying to do some things that are new and different. It's very important (I think) to create original work. It's great to take risks and it's great to fail and learn and do it again. I love that whole process.

Whereas it's great to try different things and you certainly should and take risks, some things work and some don't. I like to analyze why certain images work and certain ones don't and provide feedback on that. So, in that spirit, take the things I've said and see if that makes sense to you. See if that works for you and for the same reasons that I've mentioned. Just like there are basic rules of composition, there are reasons why some abstracts work and others don't. It all ties in together. After a while, you begin to realize that EVERY picture is an abstract because they pass or fail not based on the content, but based on the lines, colors and patterns and how they interact.

It's hard to get detailed feedback when you're creating abstracts or surreal work. At best, you'll get "Great shot!" or something non-descriptive like that. So, I try to share a bit about of what I know.

--
Mark H
"Life is worthy to photograph"

--
Mark H
"Life is worthy to photograph"

This is nice. It took me a second to figure it out. I really like the concept.

Macro guy said:

This is nice. It took me a second to figure it out. I really like the concept.

Click to expand...

Thank you Macro guy for your comment!

--
Mark H
"Life is worthy to photograph"