Cannon shooters

rainbow

And the color version:

Flyinggina

Somebody's having fun!!

My favorite in #1.

Virginia

misterb

The kids must love that thing!

Good shot.

M38A1

misterb wrote: »

Good shot.

No pun intended, right? lol.....

Yeah, I like 'em both!

Nyarthlopic

I'd be having so much fun if I was one of those kids... :-)

craig_d

I like #2 best -- actually, the color version, not so much because I prefer color as because I just don't care for your B&W conversion. As someone who shoots film most of the time these days, I think Tri-X with an orange filter would have come out pretty nicely. I prefer #2 over #1 because of the focus on one boy, and the way he's looking up at the water he's shooting, as if he were trying to hit an enemy aircraft. #1 strikes me as kind of cluttered because of the way the two boys on the right overlap and the way the other boy's face is partly blocked by the water cannon.

A somewhat longer exposure, to avoid freezing the water, might have been better.

The wide-angle composition really calls attention to the metal rail, which I don't think is what you had in mind.

rainbow

Thanks, everyone! The boy in me surfaced immediately when I saw these boys enjoying these water cannons. The boy in #2 enjoyed it even more when I misjudged the range and he popped me a good one.

rainbow

craig_d wrote: »

I like #2 best -- actually, the color version, not so much because I prefer color as because I just don't care for your B&W conversion. As someone who shoots film most of the time these days, I think Tri-X with an orange filter would have come out pretty nicely. I prefer #2 over #1 because of the focus on one boy, and the way he's looking up at the water he's shooting, as if he were trying to hit an enemy aircraft. #1 strikes me as kind of cluttered because of the way the two boys on the right overlap and the way the other boy's face is partly blocked by the water cannon.

A somewhat longer exposure, to avoid freezing the water, might have been better.

The wide-angle composition really calls attention to the metal rail, which I don't think is what you had in mind.

I actually am on the other side of the spectrum from you as I really do not have that favorable a memory of my Tri-X film days as I much prefer the smoothness of the processing and lack of graininess/noise in the shot. Way back when, I much preferred Plus-X and trying to bring out the thirty something shades of grays that were possible when using glossy paper.

I also like the "frozen" water stream and the railing. The railing is as much a part of the scene and does not distract for me.

I agree that #2 is the better shot, but I included #1 because I so much liked the way the processing turned out, especially on the skin tones.

Thanks for the detailed feedback and opinion.

bdcolen

rainbow wrote: »

Number 2, and black and white. The color one is a great example of how color can be distracting. And, as someone just reminded me over the weekend, the great color photographer Alex Webb talks about the need to avoid having red in an image unless it is meant to be the focus of the image - because your eye will always immediately be drawn to red.

MarkR

bdcolen wrote: »

Number 2, and black and white. The color one is a great example of how color can be distracting. And, as someone just reminded me over the weekend, the great color photographer Alex Webb talks about the need to avoid having red in an image unless it is meant to be the focus of the image - because your eye will always immediately be drawn to red.

Huh. And here I liked the color one.

Shows what I know.

Richard

bdcolen wrote: »

Alex Webb talks about the need to avoid having red in an image unless it is meant to be the focus of the image - because your eye will always immediately be drawn to red.

What a great observation. It's something I instinctively understood, but had never put into words.

That said, I still prefer the color version of #2, perhaps because as Craig said earlier the conversion is a little muddy.

rainbow

bdcolen wrote: »

Number 2, and black and white. The color one is a great example of how color can be distracting. And, as someone just reminded me over the weekend, the great color photographer Alex Webb talks about the need to avoid having red in an image unless it is meant to be the focus of the image - because your eye will always immediately be drawn to red.

Excellent observation and sharing of knowledge... I went back and, sure enough, my eyes darted to the red railing on the left edge after looking at the boy and the red water cannon. I will have to pay more attention to this as I evaluate my color shots (which is every one until I decide to convert the RAW image).

BUT...

MarkR wrote: »

Huh. And here I liked the color one.

Shows what I know.

I have never before posted the color version in addition to the b&w one. In this case, I loved the blend of colors (except for that back red railing now:cry). The water against the blue sky/clouds along with the skin tones makes it a preference, not a better/worse choice.

Thanks!

rainbow

Richard wrote: »

What a great observation. It's something I instinctively understood, but had never put into words.

That said, I still prefer the color version of #2, perhaps because as Craig said earlier the conversion is a little muddy.

Thanks, Richard.

I still fight the battle to not blow out highlights. The PP flavor of the month (year? decade?) is to push the contrast and love blown highlights. I cannot stand so many of the portraits in the people forum as they are so bright as to lose facial features (!) with kudos being heaped on them. In #2, the highlights on the boy are just blown (as are the clouds) while the blacks just lose detail. So I am compressing the dynamic range to just fit, which to most is not contrasty enough. I suspect as time passes, I will bump my contrast, but also hope that some will see these and tone their contrast down just a touch from their previous inclination.