I have only logged on a small amt today, tireder than usual, tennis early, my dog's first birthday.
I do want to say that having been to the FM site and seeing their posts, no frames allowed, though smaller photos, 640 whatevers, vs 800. But it looked good.
The color is not the dark black ours is. If Pathfinder were to put his bridge picture up with nothing to different it from this black, it kind of would bleed, same with many of mine.
I would "consent", since it is a contest on the photo, to suggest, and do it myself to simply go to a small white line around the photo. I have not had time to do it today.
I do like to have a title and my signature. The copyright stuff looks good and all, but it is my understanding that it is not necessary, and I don't know where I got that info.
This black, here, is an outstanding color for this site, but I do not think it shows our pictures off in the best way.
ginger
What do you all think about the color here and the darker colors in a photo kind of bleeding, by the eye, the eye does not stop, my eye doesn't, it goes right over to the black, and my eye loses the picture. I do like it when someone responds and then the photo has a white line.
Tree Drops
OK, Rutt and Pathfinder, here it is with no frame. What do you think. This or the escalators? I like them both. They are so different. Help, please.
On dgrin we have the example of Andy, a true pro and artist who does use digital frames. Andy is a fine example, but I want to point out some other examples, just so people can understand that it is not mandatory to frame in order for an image to look finished. Fred Miranda's work is pretty darn nice, and he doesn't frame:
And aren't we glad this isn't elegible?
Someone else who doesn't frame and who we are glad we don't have to compete with is Michael Reichmann:
In reality, he uses a different shade of color on his sites for the photographs to be displayed on.
Here are two more versions of my bridge reflections - I envy the nice blue skies with white clouds I have been seeing in the submissions. Nothing here lately but hot humid grey overcast days! Arghh!
I have two versions and am interested in which people prefer and why. Rutt, I have omitted the frames just for you
Does anyone prefer the diagonal view?
My problem with the diagonal one is that I really see it as a falling down railroad car.
I have only logged on a small amt today, tireder than usual, tennis early, my dog's first birthday.
I do want to say that having been to the FM site and seeing their posts, no frames allowed, though smaller photos, 640 whatevers, vs 800. But it looked good.
The color is not the dark black ours is. If Pathfinder were to put his bridge picture up with nothing to different it from this black, it kind of would bleed, same with many of mine.
I would "consent", since it is a contest on the photo, to suggest, and do it myself to simply go to a small white line around the photo. I have not had time to do it today.
I do like to have a title and my signature. The copyright stuff looks good and all, but it is my understanding that it is not necessary, and I don't know where I got that info.
This black, here, is an outstanding color for this site, but I do not think it shows our pictures off in the best way.
ginger
What do you all think about the color here and the darker colors in a photo kind of bleeding, by the eye, the eye does not stop, my eye doesn't, it goes right over to the black, and my eye loses the picture. I do like it when someone responds and then the photo has a white line.
Ginger,
I agree that certain photos look better with at least a small line. I tried mine both ways. I don't think there is any specification about frames in the contest. It has never been mentioned as far as the entries are concerned. I think it has always been a matter of personal preference. I think we should leave it at that. Of course the voters may be influenced one way or another, but it's up to the individual about their entry. I guess it's just being discussed here as to who like what.
Do you have an opinion about my two possible entries. They've all got me confused again. As I see you have been. I like your entry so far. I like them all though.
OK, I did it, now what do you all think? Ginger
I think I have a picture, here, that fades into the black that is on this site. Certain parts of the photo.
Ginger,
I agree that certain photos look better with at least a small line. I tried mine both ways. I don't think there is any specification about frames in the contest. It has never been mentioned as far as the entries are concerned. I think it has always been a matter of personal preference. I think we should leave it at that. Of course the voters may be influenced one way or another, but it's up to the individual about their entry. I guess it's just being discussed here as to who like what.
Do you have an opinion about my two possible entries. They've all got me confused again. As I see you have been. I like your entry so far. I like them all though.
Snappy, I am as torn as you are on your entries, so I have not HAD an opinion to give you.
They are so different, and it is so dicey, in the choosing, I just cannot take on that responsibility, here. Now with Pathfinder and his bridge, I don't hesitate, because I have a definite opinion. On yours, your guess is as good as mine.
I posted my Reflections all three ways, the sig frame, a thin white line, and bare nekked.
What do you think? On that picture, think it may stand out enough to go without the frame, I don't know that. Another way would be to move the white part out, like when we are copying a photo onto these pages, but I would have to match his black, so I think those are the three choices as I put them.
ginger
On your mirror/tree image I would go without the frame, and I don't know on the escalator.
I think I have a picture, here, that fades into the black that is on this site. Certain parts of the photo.
I'm very predictable. Do you really want to hear?
Frame with signature, worst
Thin white line, OK
No frame, best by far
It's like someone turned off the horrible background music in an old movie.
This may sound brutal, but it is actually a very deep compliment. Your image stands on its own. The composition is really good. Use the pixels you are allowed for the image. The frame is mundane. Are you more proud of yourself as a framer or as a photographer?
It's like someone turned off the horrible background music in an old movie.
This may sound brutal, but it is actually a very deep compliment. Your image stands on its own. The composition is really good. Use the pixels you are allowed for the image. The frame is mundane. Are you more proud of yourself as a framer or as a photographer?
I am a pretty good copywriter, am actually quite proud of that, though I don't shout it from the rooftops or anything, smile.
However, on this picture I kind of agree with you. After all, I did decide in the beginning to write no copy for it, it stood without that, so in this case I think I will go with the nekked photograph.
If it had been the rainbow, the copy, "Whisper A Rainbow" would have had to have been pried from my dead fingers, smile. I suppose I could have put it in the subject line.
Gotta sell these things, too. I think the whole thing is an art. From the conception to the finished product. I am really quite proud of my ability to write simple copy, ambiguous to draw anyone in.
reminder: this is a "no-photoshop" challenge. that means, nothing other than basic exposure adjustments (levels, curves) color correction (hue/satuation) and sharpening is allowed. yes, you may perform a black & white conversion, and yes, toning of same is allowed. minimal cropping is ok, too. the purpose of the "no-photoshop" rule is so that we can really work hard to get it right "at shoot."
To me that means that my picture is probably cropped too much and that all the other stuff we are talking about is probably out too. I would even wonder if borders and text are too much. He is pretty blunt. My pic above was cropped from the following and I would not mind an opinion on whether that is more than "minimal" but I think it probably is. Now I was using the longest lens that I had and I could not get any tighter so maybe he would pass on it.
Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
So I was thinking about submitting the following instead of the one I put in...
But then when I went over to the submissions thread, Andy's rules jumped right out at me. What he say is:
To me that means that my picture is probably cropped too much and that all the other stuff we are talking about is probably out too. I would even wonder if frames and text are too much. He is pretty blunt. My pic above was cropped from the following and I would not mind an opinion on whether that is more than "minimal" but I think it probably is. Now I was using the longest lens that I had and I could not get any tighter so maybe he would pass on it.
Charles, charles, charles. Perhaps yours is cropped a wee bit on the too much side, but you coulda done it. Andy has said yes to everything. I am not sure he would say yes to this, as IMO the original picture it was cropped from is stronger.
I know I have said nothing, and I know it is going against the popular opinion, but I have never been crazy about the cropped photo, but like the one you originally entered, and think the uncropped photo definitely has possibilities.
Charles, charles, charles. Perhaps yours is cropped a wee bit on the too much side, but you coulda done it. Andy has said yes to everything. I am not sure he would say yes to this, as IMO the original picture it was cropped from is stronger.
I know I have said nothing, and I know it is going against the popular opinion, but I have never been crazy about the cropped photo, but like the one you originally entered, and think the uncropped photo definitely has possibilities.
g
Thank you for your comments, I guess that I also really do prefer the already submitted one, so I will leave it there.
Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
Well thanks Gubbs. I was thinking of turning the hose on my patio to make a puddle. There's this tree there. A table was right there, so I thought, "why not a mirror on the table?" I got a mirror from the bedroom and put it on the table. Then I thought, "What about some drops of water on it?" As I was focusing, I tried macro on the drops and there was the tree. I liked it.
For processing, I didn't do anything much. I just cropped out the frame of the mirror, levels, contrast, a little USM. That's it.
I really like it too. Abstract, tack-sharp, and the border made it complete.
OK, Rutt and Pathfinder, here it is with no frame. What do you think. This or the escalators? I like them both. They are so different. Help, please.
I find this image very striking - sharp, well focused, good color and high contrast and original in execution. I find the escalator technically very well done, but kind of confusing and hard to understand visually, and lacking a central focal point. I obviously prefer this image for the challenge.
Despite Rutt's statements about frames - which have very valid points about prints on paper - I think when I compare this image to the one you displayed with the simple white frame, I prefer a simple white background for this image on a Web Page like dgrin. ( Ginger has talked about the background color of dgrin that images are displayed against and I share some of Ginger's concerns about some images bleeding into the surround.)
I find it interesting that you think this and your escalators are so different and that I find them somewhat simliar - a high frequency of detail and lacking a certain center of gravity. I think this says more about me and my limitations, rather than a criticism of your images. I tend to prefer images that are simpler, graphic, or serene in way - like Rutts picture of the sunset in Yellowstone, or M Reichmans ducks on the water.
But this may be merely a reflection (pun) of my limited artistic eye. I favor photographs that simplify and clarify relationships and structures, rather than more modern art type images ( I fully confess to a limited appreciation of modern art. I definitely prefer the landscape artists of the previous century. ) Maybe I have an engineer's eye, rather than an artist's.
There have been several posters who have been very complimentary about this image and I can appreciate their enthusiasm. I look forward to hearing Rutts and cmr164's opinions as well.
I find this image very striking - sharp, well focused, good color and high contrast and original in execution. I find the escalator technically very well done, but kind of confusing and hard to understand visually, and lacking a central focal point. I obviously prefer this image for the challenge.
Despite Rutt's statements about frames - which have very valid points about prints on paper - I think when I compare this image to the one you displayed with the simple white frame, I prefer a simple white background for this image on a Web Page like dgrin. ( Ginger has talked about the background color of dgrin that images are displayed against and I share some of Ginger's concerns about some images bleeding into the surround.)
There are several backgrounds and the borders work with some and not with others. Also they are just another artificial element. YMMV
I find it interesting that you think this and your escalators are so different and that I find them somewhat simliar - a high frequency of detail and lacking a certain center of gravity. I think this says more about me and my limitations, rather than a criticism of your images. I tend to prefer images that are simpler, graphic, or serene in way - like Rutts picture of the sunset in Yellowstone, or M Reichmans ducks on the water.
But this may be merely a reflection (pun) of my limited artistic eye. I favor photographs that simplify and clarify relationships and structures, rather than more modern art type images ( I fully confess to a limited appreciation of modern art. I definitely prefer the landscape artists of the previous century. ) Maybe I have an engineer's eye, rather than an artist's.
There have been several posters who have been very complimentary about this image and I can appreciate their enthusiasm. I look forward to hearing Rutts and cmr164's opinions as well.
I might wish the tree was a little less fleshed out or that the saturation was toned down a little. I would like to see the image be a little more subtle with the repetitive but markedly individual tree pattern in each droplet being the riveting element.
Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
Here's a little self portrait I just snapped with a little help from my pod...
Comments welcome.
Dooug
"Pinball Wizard"
Very interesting and a different take on the theme. Lacks snap for some reason, though. Why not increase saturation or LAB steepen? This cannot look fake. THe right USM will pick up the highlights of the ball. The ball is pretty close to the center left harmonic mean point, but maybe not exactly on it? Of perhaps the ball doesn't stand out enough for that to carry the composition. The right use of curves might fix that, too.
So I was thinking about submitting the following instead of the one I put in...
But then when I went over to the submissions thread, Andy's rules jumped right out at me. What he say is:
To me that means that my picture is probably cropped too much and that all the other stuff we are talking about is probably out too. I would even wonder if borders and text are too much. He is pretty blunt. My pic above was cropped from the following and I would not mind an opinion on whether that is more than "minimal" but I think it probably is. Now I was using the longest lens that I had and I could not get any tighter so maybe he would pass on it.
Andy later said cropping was OK, but I'd go with the one already submittted as a contest picture. But save this one. In time you'll like it a lot more, I predict.
I find this image very striking - sharp, well focused, good color and high contrast and original in execution. I find the escalator technically very well done, but kind of confusing and hard to understand visually, and lacking a central focal point. I obviously prefer this image for the challenge.
Despite Rutt's statements about frames - which have very valid points about prints on paper - I think when I compare this image to the one you displayed with the simple white frame, I prefer a simple white background for this image on a Web Page like dgrin. ( Ginger has talked about the background color of dgrin that images are displayed against and I share some of Ginger's concerns about some images bleeding into the surround.)
I find it interesting that you think this and your escalators are so different and that I find them somewhat simliar - a high frequency of detail and lacking a certain center of gravity. I think this says more about me and my limitations, rather than a criticism of your images. I tend to prefer images that are simpler, graphic, or serene in way - like Rutts picture of the sunset in Yellowstone, or M Reichmans ducks on the water.
But this may be merely a reflection (pun) of my limited artistic eye. I favor photographs that simplify and clarify relationships and structures, rather than more modern art type images ( I fully confess to a limited appreciation of modern art. I definitely prefer the landscape artists of the previous century. ) Maybe I have an engineer's eye, rather than an artist's.
There have been several posters who have been very complimentary about this image and I can appreciate their enthusiasm. I look forward to hearing Rutts and cmr164's opinions as well.
I agree Pathfinder on the similarities in the two photos based on the points you make.
My tastes are very eclectic. What I would like, I would not necessarily hang in my house. There is a certain harmony I like in my art, chaos does not, in my opinion, rule out harmony. I know what I wrote, I reread it, and I stand by it, but have to time or inclination, right now, to expand on it.
Anyway, that is why I think I can love some abstract art.
The reason I like Snappy's tree is that the tree is dropping jewelry like it would leaves. My first impression, made quite an impression on me, the feeling I had was that the jewels were going to land on my head. The bigger that picture is the more I feel that effect. When it is small, it becomes just chaos, as you see it. That is why I prefer it without anything to hold it together. Without a frame, the feeling to me is, that this cataclysmic situation of trees raining sharp jewelry could grow, maybe take over the area above me, and beyond.
A frame, in my opinion, diminishes the photo, as it contains the image. Part of the effect of the image is that there is no containment.
First words of the AM. Going to try to hit the beach with the dogs, by myself.
OK, Rutt and Pathfinder, here it is with no frame. What do you think. This or the escalators? I like them both. They are so different. Help, please.
The tree is much more original but the esclator composition is stronger. I think the tree is more beautiful but you have to look at it for a while to see that. What if you rotated it 180 degrees to it looked more like a tree? Play a bit with cropping. The thin white frames don't bother me nearly as much as the elaborate ornate ones with drop shadows. You could get a similar effect just by hyperlinking to the original, for example. But both compositions are strong enough not to need frames.
I have seen things get a lot of talk and not get into the finals, and vice versa, etc.
So that was just an observation.
The only thing I stand firm on is that I would like to see the tree unfettered by a frame, poised to grow with its jewels in absolute beauty, or spreading horror.
(You all are getting some of my writing this AM. Trying to say how I feel/think)
I do think your tree will either be received well, could be very well, by the benevolent, but missing, powers, and his co host, or will not. But it will be noticed, IMO.
g
My general thoughts on frames stand: as needed, as wanted, to enhance, bring out, only, or as the main subject. I am not much of a purist on anything. I do like the shadow frames. They do make the pictures smaller, because of the set number of pixels. I like lines around.
I love the examples Rutt showed us, though serene as they are, those mtns don't look real, though they might be.
There is one photo on FM's site that I LOVE, it is so simple, just a small boat in a plain background of grey, water, as I remember, the boat is very small comparatively.
On some of the others, just OK, I could do as well, IMO, but that is a beauty. No I could not do as well on many others, or not the same, as I cannot here. All of them seem to work in 640 pixels without a frame. I know it is 640, I think, I think it is pixels, it is the longest part. They do look good without a frame. I have not been back up there is see the exact color of the background, I think it is a soft dark grey, but I could be very wrong on that.
personally, I like his way, and I also like frames, depends on many things. Again, what I like, I would not necessarily hang, either in my house, or in cyberspace. The cyberspace that is FM is very conducive to the "no frame" rule/look. IMO.
g
gubb's do you, in general, post your photos on smugmug and/or sell them, I was thinking of that last night: your wife, 2 4 X 6s. We can't buy/sell on this forum, won't give anyone that to talk about, but I would like that photo in a small size. And an opportunity to buy it. Burned grass or not.
I would not vote for it, however. If that tells you all anything. I don't think I would vote for it, who knows. I am an impulse voter.
Maybe we should run ads, not too close to the voting........
Very interesting and a different take on the theme. Lacks snap for some reason, though. Why not increase saturation or LAB steepen? This cannot look fake. THe right USM will pick up the highlights of the ball. The ball is pretty close to the center left harmonic mean point, but maybe not exactly on it? Of perhaps the ball doesn't stand out enough for that to carry the composition. The right use of curves might fix that, too.
Thanks. I agree, something is missing. Can I get a translator please?
One thing I don't do is play with my photos after they have been taken. If I can't capture what I want with the camera, I won't be trying to later with photoshop. I don't know why I feel this way, I just do. I just really try to get what I am after when I click the shutter. So, what I will do is go back down to my gameroom and try to get a more interesting image. I have photoshop installed, but I rarely use it for more than resizing. It's a personal thing, and I know, I am probably missing out on some cool stuff, but that is what I like to do.
I plan to be taking some more pinball shots this weekend, both in my gameroom and at a small tournament tomorrow. Should be some cool stuff if there are any "pinheads" on this forum.
It's pouring out, so I am determined to get something worthy of this challenge out of one of my pinball machines today. Here are a couple more, this time using a longer lens. Please send comments my way... Thanks.
It's pouring out, so I am determined to get something worthy of this challenge out of one of my pinball machines today. Here are a couple more, this time using a longer lens. Please send comments my way... Thanks.
-Doug
I really like this one and your original wthout having a clear favorite. Critical for me is the inclusion of a human being. I think that adds tremendously. The second shot has more action and that is a plus while the first has a quieter light range. I think I would prefer the 2nd if the white-balance was set not to be quite so warm and the picture was 1/3-1/2 stop under-exposed. You can fix both of those in s/w or in a retake. I understand how you feel about shooting vs photoshopping because I have similar feelings, except my threshold is further out on the scale. I am happy to play with light and saturation and colour, but not cloning and such.
Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
I really like this one and your original wthout having a clear favorite. Critical for me is the inclusion of a human being. I think that adds tremendously. The second shot has more action and that is a plus while the first has a quieter light range. I think I would prefer the 2nd if the white-balance was set not to be quite so warm and the picture was 1/3-1/5 stop under-exposed. You can fix both of those in s/w or in a retake. I understand how you feel about shooting vs photoshopping because I have similar feelings, except my threshold is further ou the scale. I am happy to play with light and saturation and colour, but not cloning and such.
What do you mean by cloning? Not that I don't know exactly what the cloning tool is, and I know pretty much how to use it.
But there are degrees in everything.
I have "resorted" to cloning (an annoying extra step for me on an easy picture), but I have used it to get rid of a dust spost 1/4 or less the size of a smiley.
I don't see that on the "level" of "sins" as extensive use of play with light, saturation and colour. And composition. Etc.
Purists drive me nuts, because it is so inflexible. (And my best photographer friend is a purist which is kind of nice balance)
But everytime someone mentions the "sin" of cloning, I think of the little tiny dust spots, better to be removed, don't change the photo in general, or in looks really.
Do you include that type of thing with cloning? I have never used cloning extensively, I find it tedious, am constantly redoing it, but what is extensive cloning?
Is this stuff considered reflections? I have books that include stuff like this as reflections, Andy said something that made me think he considered it a reflection. Except for the silhouette I have in one of my photos, I don't think he likes those, except in a silhouette Challenge. I was on the beach, alone, well other people, but I was with my dogs. Of course I took my camera. I have dog pictures, scenics and some that I would think might be reflections. On whatever level, you all can comment. (The sand was a b to deal with) g
That is one of the ones I would think of as a reflection. Not my dog nor do I know the woman, though she was very nice, and we loved her toy with the tennis ball. The dogs are allowed to run free until 10:00. First time we have done it. Many treats to get the "come" command down, was hard to think, photography, dogs, etc. I grabbed things. Somehow my 512 mb card put on about 225 photos rather than the usual 150. I have not touched the settings. I thought maybe it had something to do with the low light.
Comments
I do want to say that having been to the FM site and seeing their posts, no frames allowed, though smaller photos, 640 whatevers, vs 800. But it looked good.
The color is not the dark black ours is. If Pathfinder were to put his bridge picture up with nothing to different it from this black, it kind of would bleed, same with many of mine.
I would "consent", since it is a contest on the photo, to suggest, and do it myself to simply go to a small white line around the photo. I have not had time to do it today.
I do like to have a title and my signature. The copyright stuff looks good and all, but it is my understanding that it is not necessary, and I don't know where I got that info.
This black, here, is an outstanding color for this site, but I do not think it shows our pictures off in the best way.
ginger
What do you all think about the color here and the darker colors in a photo kind of bleeding, by the eye, the eye does not stop, my eye doesn't, it goes right over to the black, and my eye loses the picture. I do like it when someone responds and then the photo has a white line.
OK, Rutt and Pathfinder, here it is with no frame. What do you think. This or the escalators? I like them both. They are so different. Help, please.
Susan Appel Photography My Blog
ginger
My problem with the diagonal one is that I really see it as a falling down railroad car.
I still prefer the top one. (bridges)
g
ginger
Ginger,
I agree that certain photos look better with at least a small line. I tried mine both ways. I don't think there is any specification about frames in the contest. It has never been mentioned as far as the entries are concerned. I think it has always been a matter of personal preference. I think we should leave it at that. Of course the voters may be influenced one way or another, but it's up to the individual about their entry. I guess it's just being discussed here as to who like what.
Do you have an opinion about my two possible entries. They've all got me confused again. As I see you have been. I like your entry so far. I like them all though.
Susan Appel Photography My Blog
Comments welcome.
Dooug
"Pinball Wizard"
I think I have a picture, here, that fades into the black that is on this site. Certain parts of the photo.
They are so different, and it is so dicey, in the choosing, I just cannot take on that responsibility, here. Now with Pathfinder and his bridge, I don't hesitate, because I have a definite opinion. On yours, your guess is as good as mine.
I posted my Reflections all three ways, the sig frame, a thin white line, and bare nekked.
What do you think? On that picture, think it may stand out enough to go without the frame, I don't know that. Another way would be to move the white part out, like when we are copying a photo onto these pages, but I would have to match his black, so I think those are the three choices as I put them.
ginger
On your mirror/tree image I would go without the frame, and I don't know on the escalator.
g
- Frame with signature, worst
- Thin white line, OK
- No frame, best by far
It's like someone turned off the horrible background music in an old movie.This may sound brutal, but it is actually a very deep compliment. Your image stands on its own. The composition is really good. Use the pixels you are allowed for the image. The frame is mundane. Are you more proud of yourself as a framer or as a photographer?
However, on this picture I kind of agree with you. After all, I did decide in the beginning to write no copy for it, it stood without that, so in this case I think I will go with the nekked photograph.
If it had been the rainbow, the copy, "Whisper A Rainbow" would have had to have been pried from my dead fingers, smile. I suppose I could have put it in the subject line.
Gotta sell these things, too. I think the whole thing is an art. From the conception to the finished product. I am really quite proud of my ability to write simple copy, ambiguous to draw anyone in.
g
This left over from the trip to the marina. I have always liked it. It is a reflection of my husband, and what all, in a window. Strange.
So I was thinking about submitting the following instead of the one I put in...
But then when I went over to the submissions thread, Andy's rules jumped right out at me. What he say is:
To me that means that my picture is probably cropped too much and that all the other stuff we are talking about is probably out too. I would even wonder if borders and text are too much. He is pretty blunt. My pic above was cropped from the following and I would not mind an opinion on whether that is more than "minimal" but I think it probably is. Now I was using the longest lens that I had and I could not get any tighter so maybe he would pass on it.
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
Charles, charles, charles. Perhaps yours is cropped a wee bit on the too much side, but you coulda done it. Andy has said yes to everything. I am not sure he would say yes to this, as IMO the original picture it was cropped from is stronger.
I know I have said nothing, and I know it is going against the popular opinion, but I have never been crazy about the cropped photo, but like the one you originally entered, and think the uncropped photo definitely has possibilities.
g
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
I really like it too. Abstract, tack-sharp, and the border made it complete.
Lynne
Galleries here Upcoming Ranch/Horse Workshop
Despite Rutt's statements about frames - which have very valid points about prints on paper - I think when I compare this image to the one you displayed with the simple white frame, I prefer a simple white background for this image on a Web Page like dgrin. ( Ginger has talked about the background color of dgrin that images are displayed against and I share some of Ginger's concerns about some images bleeding into the surround.)
I find it interesting that you think this and your escalators are so different and that I find them somewhat simliar - a high frequency of detail and lacking a certain center of gravity. I think this says more about me and my limitations, rather than a criticism of your images. I tend to prefer images that are simpler, graphic, or serene in way - like Rutts picture of the sunset in Yellowstone, or M Reichmans ducks on the water.
But this may be merely a reflection (pun) of my limited artistic eye. I favor photographs that simplify and clarify relationships and structures, rather than more modern art type images ( I fully confess to a limited appreciation of modern art. I definitely prefer the landscape artists of the previous century. ) Maybe I have an engineer's eye, rather than an artist's.
There have been several posters who have been very complimentary about this image and I can appreciate their enthusiasm. I look forward to hearing Rutts and cmr164's opinions as well.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
There are several backgrounds and the borders work with some and not with others. Also they are just another artificial element. YMMV
I might wish the tree was a little less fleshed out or that the saturation was toned down a little. I would like to see the image be a little more subtle with the repetitive but markedly individual tree pattern in each droplet being the riveting element.
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
gubbs.smugmug.com
TREE!! Definitely the tree!
My tastes are very eclectic. What I would like, I would not necessarily hang in my house. There is a certain harmony I like in my art, chaos does not, in my opinion, rule out harmony. I know what I wrote, I reread it, and I stand by it, but have to time or inclination, right now, to expand on it.
Anyway, that is why I think I can love some abstract art.
The reason I like Snappy's tree is that the tree is dropping jewelry like it would leaves. My first impression, made quite an impression on me, the feeling I had was that the jewels were going to land on my head. The bigger that picture is the more I feel that effect. When it is small, it becomes just chaos, as you see it. That is why I prefer it without anything to hold it together. Without a frame, the feeling to me is, that this cataclysmic situation of trees raining sharp jewelry could grow, maybe take over the area above me, and beyond.
A frame, in my opinion, diminishes the photo, as it contains the image. Part of the effect of the image is that there is no containment.
First words of the AM. Going to try to hit the beach with the dogs, by myself.
ginger
The tree is much more original but the esclator composition is stronger. I think the tree is more beautiful but you have to look at it for a while to see that. What if you rotated it 180 degrees to it looked more like a tree? Play a bit with cropping. The thin white frames don't bother me nearly as much as the elaborate ornate ones with drop shadows. You could get a similar effect just by hyperlinking to the original, for example. But both compositions are strong enough not to need frames.
I have seen things get a lot of talk and not get into the finals, and vice versa, etc.
So that was just an observation.
The only thing I stand firm on is that I would like to see the tree unfettered by a frame, poised to grow with its jewels in absolute beauty, or spreading horror.
(You all are getting some of my writing this AM. Trying to say how I feel/think)
I do think your tree will either be received well, could be very well, by the benevolent, but missing, powers, and his co host, or will not. But it will be noticed, IMO.
g
My general thoughts on frames stand: as needed, as wanted, to enhance, bring out, only, or as the main subject. I am not much of a purist on anything. I do like the shadow frames. They do make the pictures smaller, because of the set number of pixels. I like lines around.
I love the examples Rutt showed us, though serene as they are, those mtns don't look real, though they might be.
There is one photo on FM's site that I LOVE, it is so simple, just a small boat in a plain background of grey, water, as I remember, the boat is very small comparatively.
On some of the others, just OK, I could do as well, IMO, but that is a beauty. No I could not do as well on many others, or not the same, as I cannot here. All of them seem to work in 640 pixels without a frame. I know it is 640, I think, I think it is pixels, it is the longest part. They do look good without a frame. I have not been back up there is see the exact color of the background, I think it is a soft dark grey, but I could be very wrong on that.
personally, I like his way, and I also like frames, depends on many things. Again, what I like, I would not necessarily hang, either in my house, or in cyberspace. The cyberspace that is FM is very conducive to the "no frame" rule/look. IMO.
g
gubb's do you, in general, post your photos on smugmug and/or sell them, I was thinking of that last night: your wife, 2 4 X 6s. We can't buy/sell on this forum, won't give anyone that to talk about, but I would like that photo in a small size. And an opportunity to buy it. Burned grass or not.
I would not vote for it, however. If that tells you all anything. I don't think I would vote for it, who knows. I am an impulse voter.
Maybe we should run ads, not too close to the voting........
One thing I don't do is play with my photos after they have been taken. If I can't capture what I want with the camera, I won't be trying to later with photoshop. I don't know why I feel this way, I just do. I just really try to get what I am after when I click the shutter. So, what I will do is go back down to my gameroom and try to get a more interesting image. I have photoshop installed, but I rarely use it for more than resizing. It's a personal thing, and I know, I am probably missing out on some cool stuff, but that is what I like to do.
I plan to be taking some more pinball shots this weekend, both in my gameroom and at a small tournament tomorrow. Should be some cool stuff if there are any "pinheads" on this forum.
Doug
-Doug
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
But there are degrees in everything.
I have "resorted" to cloning (an annoying extra step for me on an easy picture), but I have used it to get rid of a dust spost 1/4 or less the size of a smiley.
I don't see that on the "level" of "sins" as extensive use of play with light, saturation and colour. And composition. Etc.
Purists drive me nuts, because it is so inflexible. (And my best photographer friend is a purist which is kind of nice balance)
But everytime someone mentions the "sin" of cloning, I think of the little tiny dust spots, better to be removed, don't change the photo in general, or in looks really.
Do you include that type of thing with cloning? I have never used cloning extensively, I find it tedious, am constantly redoing it, but what is extensive cloning?
Why cloning?
g
That is one of the ones I would think of as a reflection. Not my dog nor do I know the woman, though she was very nice, and we loved her toy with the tennis ball. The dogs are allowed to run free until 10:00. First time we have done it. Many treats to get the "come" command down, was hard to think, photography, dogs, etc. I grabbed things. Somehow my 512 mb card put on about 225 photos rather than the usual 150. I have not touched the settings. I thought maybe it had something to do with the low light.
ginger