DSS #94 (Angles or Shapes) First try

Jenn

Here is my first try at this challenge. What do you think? C&C welcome ..


The Right Angle (full size is best)

CHANDLERJA

I really like the shapes but the crop and color make it seem flat to me somehow. I think the wall next to it is going to make it hard to get a good angle.

Jenn

CHANDLERJA wrote: »

I really like the shapes but the crop and color make it seem flat to me somehow. I think the wall next to it is going to make it hard to get a good angle.

Well.. I kind of meant for the wall to be part of the image that contains *angles*. I almost named it *101 Angles* but I lost count at how many were really there.

Not sure how the color makes it seem flat. Ideas?

Bendr

I think that you could make this a much stronger photo, as is, there are definitely angles, but they seem to be lost among the whole of the picture. I would try changing your angle(Pun intended), maybe move in closer, and try focusing on one angle rather than the whole of the object...

Good start, You will do well!

Ben

Jenn

Bendr wrote: »

I think that you could make this a much stronger photo, as is, there are definitely angles, but they seem to be lost among the whole of the picture. I would try changing your angle(Pun intended), maybe move in closer, and try focusing on one angle rather than the whole of the object...

Good start, You will do well!

Ben

hmmm I'm not exactly sure how I can get closer. It's like this awning cover over the steps at the building I work at. It's about 8 or 10 feet above my head. I'll give it some study, tho.

Jenn

I have a second image that I was thinking also might work for this challenge. Is this one better than my first image? C&C welcome ..


Sidewalk Lighthouse

travelways

They are both good as an "exercise". I like more the subject and composition in the last one tough...

However, don't forget: this is a challenge, not a simple exercise, and you have 2 weeks to do it.

I would try to find some more interesting subjects, colors, angles, in different light conditions... etc.

Jenn

photo-funtasia wrote: »

They are both good as an "exercise". I like more the subject and composition in the last one tough...

However, don't forget: this is a challenge, not a simple exercise, and you have 2 weeks to do it.

I would try to find some more interesting subjects, colors, angles, in different light conditions... etc.

These aren't interesting enough? hahahahahaha ... I thought they were pretty interesting.

There really isn't that much interesting to take photos of here in Tulsa especially near my job or home, which is usually the only places I have time to go to. I could take a photo of the Golden Driller or Praying hands.

I kind of liked the first image because of all the different angles and shapes in it, but doesn't seem like anyone else is too impressed by it. Why doesn't the first image work, and why aren't either of them interesting enough? Maybe I'm looking at this challenge all wrong? Help?

travelways

Jenn wrote: »

.....

I kind of liked the first image because of all the different angles and shapes in it, but doesn't seem like anyone else is too impressed by it. Why doesn't the first image work, and why aren't either of them interesting enough? Maybe I'm looking at this challenge all wrong? Help?

Unfortunately I cannot help - it's just visual and subjective...

* I was for example very impressed by Sean's examples - what about you?

Jenn

photo-funtasia wrote: »

Unfortunately I cannot help - it's just visual and subjective...

* I was for example very impressed by Sean's examples - what about you?

Sean's examples are great, but I'm not Sean. Don't either of my images say "Angles" or "Shapes"? I might as well give up now if I need photos like Sean's to even appear like I'm doing anything other than just an "exercise".

PedalGirl

I quite like your 2nd one.... you might try straightening it just a tad tho.

tinamarie52

I agree that the awning doesn't grab. The light post and the cement angles are more interesting. Jenn, please remember that your challenge entries are YOUR vision. You sift through the advice and take what makes your image stronger in YOUR opinion. If you keep trying to please all of the people all of the time, you'll never be happy with your entries. You get a lot of good advice in these threads. Sort through it and grow.

Chris

Jenn

PedalGirl wrote: »

I quite like your 2nd one.... you might try straightening it just a tad tho.

mmmmmmmm I looked at it and the perspective I took it at doesn't allow for me to straighten it so both sides look *straight*. It's close, but I took it from a perspective of looking down slightly at it. Which side would I straighten?

Jenn

tinamarie52 wrote: »

I agree that the awning doesn't grab. The light post and the cement angles are more interesting. Jenn, please remember that your challenge entries are YOUR vision. You sift through the advice and take what makes your image stronger in YOUR opinion. If you keep trying to please all of the people all of the time, you'll never be happy with your entries. You get a lot of good advice in these threads. Sort through it and grow.

Chris

It was a bit disheartening to read that my best efforts only look like I'm participating in an "exercise". <sigh> Will professional or more experienced photographers ever see my efforts as anything but?

Demian

Why doesn't the first image work,

I think people find it difficult to look at because it has a ton of haphazardly arranged geometric shapes with no clear subject. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, if it's your intent. But this is why people leave feeling unnerved.

Sherstone's images are popular because the angles are intricately and beautifully tied to the nature and performance of the subject (as in examples 1 and 3) or have repeated patterns, which humans enjoy (as in the last picture).

It was a bit disheartening to read that my best efforts only look like I'm participating in an "exercise". Will professional or more experienced photographers ever see my efforts as anything but?

One of the best pictures I've ever taken (in my opinion) is almost universally hated. All this tells me is that people have bad taste In contests and work we have to play to the taste of others, but never accept that they're right unless you come to that conclusion yourself.

Besides, if you die with your work derided by your contemporaries, you'll be joining the ranks of just about every other now-famous artist

Jenn

Demian wrote: »

I think people find it difficult to look at because it has a ton of haphazardly arranged geometric shapes with no clear subject. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, if it's your intent. But this is why people leave feeling unnerved.

Well... I was going for "angles angles everywhere .. can you count the angles?" kind of thing. All I see is angles. But, I have a math/geometry background as subjects that I loved and was good at in school. 'Course that's been years, but I still love the geometry when I see it like in the first image I presented.

Demian wrote: »

Sherstone's images are popular because the angles are intricately and beautifully tied to the nature and performance of the subject (as in examples 1 and 3) or have repeated patterns, which humans enjoy (as in the last picture).
One of the best pictures I've ever taken (in my opinion) is almost universally hated. All this tells me is that people have bad taste In contests and work we have to play to the taste of others, but never accept that they're right unless you come to that conclusion yourself.

Do you have a link to it? I'd love to see it.

Demian wrote: »

Besides, if you die with your work derided by your contemporaries, you'll be joining the ranks of just about every other now-famous artist

To include me as a 'contemporary' would mean that I'm a real photographer! HAHA

I really appreciate your comments. I have a couple more images I took and will see if they come close to passing the mustard or not. Maybe you will tell me what you think if you have time? Will post them shortly.

Jenn

One more try .. 2 slightly different perspectives and taken at slightly different angles.


Tower 1




Tower 2

Demian

Tower 1 is definitely my favorite so far. My only problem is the negative space... if you took it on a semi-cloudy day, you might get some fun shapes to play with too.

Jenn

Demian wrote: »

Tower 1 is definitely my favorite so far. My only problem is the negative space... if you took it on a semi-cloudy day, you might get some fun shapes to play with too.

How do I fix 'negative' space?

sapphire73

I agree that the tower is a good subject for this challenge. It would be great to try shooting it at different times of day, different skies, and from different positions to see which ones you like best and then share them with us.

As for "exercise" I think Photo-Funtasia was encouraging you to feel free to take more time to play with your ideas and see what you get. I find that sometimes the first photos are the keepers, and sometimes they are like a warm-up exercise or "first draft" that helps me find a way to get a better entry.

Have fun with it!

Gretchen

Jenn

sapphire73 wrote: »

I agree that the tower is a good subject for this challenge. It would be great to try shooting it at different times of day, different skies, and from different positions to see which ones you like best and then share them with us.

I kind of did that today. These were the 2 best shots I had. I really didn't want to show the bad ones, too. I don't really understand the need to take the same photo under different skies or positions different from this. Aren't these stricking enough? What exactly are you looking for that isn't there?

sapphire73 wrote: »

As for "exercise" I think Photo-Funtasia was encouraging you to feel free to take more time to play with your ideas and see what you get. I find that sometimes the first photos are the keepers, and sometimes they are like a warm-up exercise or "first draft" that helps me find a way to get a better entry.
Have fun with it!
Gretchen

ok I'll try to remember that.

PedalGirl

Jenn wrote: »

I kind of did that today. These were the 2 best shots I had. I really didn't want to show the bad ones, too. I don't really understand the need to take the same photo under different skies or positions different from this. Aren't these stricking enough? What exactly are you looking for that isn't there?

Nobody is suggesting you show the bad ones... simply suggesting that maybe before you enter that maybe on another day you might be able to catch some interesting clouds as background to give the photo just a little extra pop. In the end... you've got to enter what you like best.

As far as taking the same photo under different conditions or multiple angles.... that's what we all do in trying to figure out what we like best and how we can make our photos even better. And sometimes when we go back to the same spot... we see something we didn't before. It's just part of the process.

Jenn

PedalGirl wrote: »

Jenn wrote: »

I kind of did that today. These were the 2 best shots I had. I really didn't want to show the bad ones, too. I don't really understand the need to take the same photo under different skies or positions different from this. Aren't these stricking enough? What exactly are you looking for that isn't there?

Nobody is suggesting you show the bad ones... simply suggesting that maybe before you enter that maybe on another day you might be able to catch some interesting clouds as background to give the photo just a little extra pop. In the end... you've got to enter what you like best.

As far as taking the same photo under different conditions or multiple angles.... that's what we all do in trying to figure out what we like best and how we can make our photos even better. And sometimes when we go back to the same spot... we see something we didn't before. It's just part of the process.

I did take one or two that had clouds in them, but didn't really like the clouds in the photo because it messed up the perfect blue sky. I think I took like 15 different angles.. maybe more, but narrowed it down to these two.

What do you think about Tower 2? It has the corner of the partitian that separates the tower area from the public access to it. I kind of like the angle the corner is at.. parallel to the left tower line and it reminds me of a tool my husband uses sometimes... I want to call it an "L" level or measuring stick. It gives me the feel of angle iron measuring the tower. Do you see the same thing?? Maybe it's just me.

PedalGirl

There are so many angles in the tower that the corner of the partition is just a distraction.... I would stick to #1.

travelways

sapphire73 wrote: »

As for "exercise" I think Photo-Funtasia was encouraging you to feel free to take more time to play with your ideas and see what you get. I find that sometimes the first photos are the keepers, and sometimes they are like a warm-up exercise or "first draft" that helps me find a way to get a better entry.

Have fun with it!

Gretchen

Demian

Jenn wrote: »

How do I fix 'negative' space?

I had to give it some thought... I think that the sky doesn't really look like a sky without some kind of cloud cover. If there are no clouds and the sky is a relatively universal color, it looks more like an artificial background.

If you wanna see what I mean, try a google images search for landscape, and compare the pics with clouds to those without.

I don't really understand the need to take the same photo under different skies or positions different from this.

Every element, in its existence or absence, contributes to your picture. And sometimes the tiniest details can make a photo. Some of my favorite spots in Milwaukee have a vastly different mood just a few hours apart

What do you think about Tower 2? It has the corner of the partitian that separates the tower area from the public access to it. I kind of like the angle the corner is at.. parallel to the left tower line and it reminds me of a tool my husband uses sometimes... I want to call it an "L" level or measuring stick. It gives me the feel of angle iron measuring the tower. Do you see the same thing?? Maybe it's just me.

I really like the idea, but it feels like the tower is dominating the view and the corner is a little intrusion. I'd like to see it a little more balanced, like 1/2 tower, 1/3rd partition, and 1/6th sky? Or something like that.

PedalGirl

"If you wanna see what I mean, try a google images search for landscape, and compare the pics with clouds to those without."

This for example.... if there were no clouds... it would still be good... but I think the clouds really made this photo special.

Jenn

PedalGirl wrote: »

There are so many angles in the tower that the corner of the partition is just a distraction.... I would stick to #1.

Do you think it's too many angles?

Demian wrote: »

I had to give it some thought... I think that the sky doesn't really look like a sky without some kind of cloud cover. If there are no clouds and the sky is a relatively universal color, it looks more like an artificial background.
If you wanna see what I mean, try a google images search for landscape, and compare the pics with clouds to those without.
Every element, in its existence or absence, contributes to your picture. And sometimes the tiniest details can make a photo. Some of my favorite spots in Milwaukee have a vastly different mood just a few hours apart
I really like the idea, but it feels like the tower is dominating the view and the corner is a little intrusion. I'd like to see it a little more balanced, like 1/2 tower, 1/3rd partition, and 1/6th sky? Or something like that.

hmmmm So, it would still be a good photo if I cut the tower off in order to get it to balance out like that? I don't see any other way to get other objects into the image and balance it like that. It's a gigantic tower. I took some photos kind of like that, but figured they weren't good because the tower was cut off. If I have the whole tower in the photo, it isn't going to be balanced like that... I also have one photo that has an airplane flying by, but I thought the airplane would be distracting. What do you think?

I'll take another look at the images I took that did have some clouds in it and the plane and edit to see what it looks like. I thought those things would take away from the beautiful blue sky and the angle of the tower against it.

PedalGirl wrote: »

This for example.... if there were no clouds... it would still be good... but I think the clouds really made this photo special.

hmmm so, if my tower had clouds in it, it would be the missing "umph"?

ghinson

I agree, the tower has a lot of potential for "angles" I copied it an played with your pic a little. One thing to think about when you have a photo that requires a lot of uninteresting negative space, like this plain blue sky, or a photo that is filled with a white overcast sky, is this is when sometimes a black & white conversion can help. In this sample, I took your pic, played with the angles a bit, converted it to B&W and added a little film grain to it. Not meaning to imply that this is better than what you have showed, but I post it as an example of ways to play with that tower.



(I recognize it is presumptuous of me to do this with your photo. Will gladly take it down if you like.)

Jenn

ghinson wrote: »

I agree, the tower has a lot of potential for "angles" I copied it an played with your pic a little. One thing to think about when you have a photo that requires a lot of uninteresting negative space, like this plain blue sky, or a photo that is filled with a white overcast sky, is this is when sometimes a black & white conversion can help. In this sample, I took your pic, played with the angles a bit, converted it to B&W and added a little film grain to it. Not meaning to imply that this is better than what you have showed, but I post it as an example of ways to play with that tower.



(I recognize it is presumptuous of me to do this with your photo. Will gladly take it down if you like.)

well.. I thought people would hate it if I did something like that with the image because I've done processing like that before and no one liked it. I thought people want to see the actual image I took in focus, without graininess or special effects. I can process just about any image to do practically anything I want it to do since graphics is what I do as part of my job. That kind of thing is easy for me to do. I've never gotten a good response when I've done it and was told that the processing/effects were distracting.

I thought a beautiful clear blue sky would show the perfect lines of the tower and emphasize the angles? Do you not want to see that? Now I'm confused.

How do I know when I can take an image and process it with effects and when not to? I see images that are out of focus and blurry and has noise in it and it gets a lot of "I love it" type responses, but the in focus, sharp with great contrast images get more of a 'ho hum'.

I can't do this particular processing now since you've already done it. I'd just be copying and it wouldn't be an original idea, which I'm not at all offended by you doing this. It helps me a lot to see an example of what you're trying to describe.

Question: Why present it on it's side vs upright?

PedalGirl

OK... first, you worry way too much about someone "hating" your photos. Of course we all want others to like our work, but in matters such as these, its all subjective... no matter what picture you take some people will love it and some won't. In the end, it's you who needs to love it... because you do this for your enjoyment, right? Everyone's suggestions are just that... suggestions. You should sort through them and see which ones YOU agree with and which ones you don't. Or try some out... see how it works... and then you decide if you want to go with it. There is no right or wrong.

As for processing. There isn't a picture I've posted that hasn't been processed in some fashion... a boost here, a boost there... maybe black and white, some selective focusing... something. Processing isn't a no-no, even graininess and effects can really enhance a photo depending on what you do and how you do it. When I shoot something... I'll take it from different angles... different vantage points, etc. That's the beauty of digital...fill up the card if you have to... you can throw out what you don't need and it doesn't cost a dime. Then I pick a few that I think will work and I play with them... different processing styles, sometimes I'll have 3 or 4 versions of the same picture and then I decide what works best. Sometimes I feel like maybe the lighting is off or there is a distracting shadow where I don't want it that's too big to clone away... or like in the case of your tower, I wonder what kind of difference a different sky would make in the photo... so I'll go back at a different time of day or another day and take a few more to see if what I come up with is better than what I already have. Sometimes it is... sometimes not... but it's all part of my process.

With your tower ... I like it...there's nothing "wrong" with it. If it were mine... if there was a day between now and the end of the challenge period where there were some cool clouds in the sky or a really fabulous sunset... I would go back and shoot again, just to see what that would add or subtract to the photo. Or even maybe even a night shot if it's lit up.

All we are saying is that some different processing or shot on a different day MIGHT improve on what you've already got.