He was Jammin Man!! (which one)

LiquidOps · March 13, 2005

Hey guys...

More from my recent venture to 3rd street promenade. Trying to be in the "Zone" that Andy talks about.

What ya think?

Yay?

Nay?

Which one?

Thanks,

Steven

marlof · March 14, 2005

The one in color does more to me, the other feels a bit over the top. I like the depth of field, but I'd prefer the main subject to be less centered in the frame. May be you could try a different crop?

ridetwistyroads · March 14, 2005

I think maybe a somewhat desaturated backround might look cool, not fully b+w, but lacking in full color. I liked the b+w version, but I keep thinking the full color had more pop. What drove me back to the b+w (and my suggestion for compromise) is the guy walking behind the street player's guitar's head. It distracts me, kind of like the perverbial "candle out of the groomsmen's head" in a wedding shot. The B+W minimises this, so thats probably why I'm lent to it.

It is a great capture of mood, and groove. I love that he's singing along, whether aloud or in his head, and I love the concentration as he's focusing on the chord he's forming. That's a great display of soul.

LiquidOps · March 14, 2005

ridetwistyroads wrote:

I think maybe a somewhat desaturated backround might look cool, not fully b+w, but lacking in full color. I liked the b+w version, but I keep thinking the full color had more pop. What drove me back to the b+w (and my suggestion for compromise) is the guy walking behind the street player's guitar's head. It distracts me, kind of like the perverbial "candle out of the groomsmen's head" in a wedding shot. The B+W minimises this, so thats probably why I'm lent to it.

It is a great capture of mood, and groove. I love that he's singing along, whether aloud or in his head, and I love the concentration as he's focusing on the chord he's forming. That's a great display of soul.

I will try this compromise when I get home. I am definately not too fond of the guy in the background. Seems an awful lot of work to get him cloned out. I am open to any other suggestions though.

Thanks for your comments. They are much appreciated.

Still open to suggestions.

Thanks,

Steven

P.S. It's all about the 717

Andy · March 14, 2005

steven

your choice on the treatment

as far as the shot - it's good - to impove i'd try to get more of the scene around the player. or, get in even tighter! but i'd really prefer more of the scene. wide angle is your friend

thanks for sharing!

LiquidOps · March 14, 2005

andy wrote:

steven

your choice on the treatment

as far as the shot - it's good - to impove i'd try to get more of the scene around the player. or, get in even tighter! but i'd really prefer more of the scene. wide angle is your friend

thanks for sharing!

Thanks for your comments Andy...

Unfortunately I can't get more of the scene. I wasn't fully in the "zone" at the time, so i missed that one detail.

How tight is too tight to crop in?

rutt · March 16, 2005

Selective color is an overused gimmick. Don't use unless you have some new startling new twist. In this case you don't. The full color version works at least as well.

Thiago Sigrist · March 16, 2005

Some thoughts on the shot...
Hi Steven!

My first thought on your shot was that it's pretty cool! I still hold that, but I agree with the other people's suggestions: getting in closer or using wider angle (therefore showing more of the scene) would be more adequate, IMHO. Also, perhaps you should try a crop on it, you might come up with something you like better!

:

By the way, stick with the full color picture! The shallow DOF already provides sufficient isolation from the background!

Thanks so much for sharing!
Take care!

-- thiago

LiquidOps · March 16, 2005

Thiago Sigrist wrote:

Hi Steven!

My first thought on your shot was that it's pretty cool! I still hold that, but I agree with the other people's suggestions: getting in closer or using wider angle (therefore showing more of the scene) would be more adequate, IMHO. Also, perhaps you should try a crop on it, you might come up with something you like better! :

By the way, stick with the full color picture! The shallow DOF already provides sufficient isolation from the background!

Thanks so much for sharing!
Take care!

-- thiago

I really appreciate all the advice you guys have delivered thus far. I wasn't too sure about the selective color myself. The reason I tried it, is beacuse the guy in the background really distracted me. I will try some closer crops when i get home.

Please define "Wide Angle" - Does this mean that I shouldn't have used any zoom from the camera at all? My way of thinking, is that I wanted the guy to be big. I fear that if i shoot too wide angle he will look too small. Am I thinking of this in the wrong concept?

Thanks,

Steven

rutt · March 17, 2005

LiquidOps wrote:

I really appreciate all the advice you guys have delivered thus far. I wasn't too sure about the selective color myself. The reason I tried it, is beacuse the guy in the background really distracted me. I will try some closer crops when i get home.

Please define "Wide Angle" - Does this mean that I shouldn't have used any zoom from the camera at all? My way of thinking, is that I wanted the guy to be big. I fear that if i shoot too wide angle he will look too small. Am I thinking of this in the wrong concept?

Thanks,

Steven

An alternative to selecive color is selecive focus which is a more classical technique. Normally you have to decide to do this at the time you shoot (by using a low f-stop and a lens with good bokah) but it can be done in post as well. See this thread:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=1011

ginger_55 · March 17, 2005

Liquid Ops, I don't know what you can do now. I, in a perfect world, haha, I can say that I wasn't there, but I would be curious if you had moved to your right, particularly since you didn't like the guy walking.

Wide angle means including more in the scene, as much as your lens allows. Wide angle lenses are usually below about 35mm.

Bokah is a natural blur in the background. It comes from a very shallow depth of field: that is where very little, just the subject, is in focus.

The reason that I think you could have moved around is that the quitar player is pretty well stuck where he is. The people moving around him aren't. I would have taken 5 to 10 shots minimum. Deleted half and come home with half. Given him some money for being nice to you, just shot away. I over shoot. But I would have done it from both sides. Tight and wide.

ginger

ginger_55 · March 17, 2005

This would cut the man out. I will say that alot of these people like people walking by. I don't do street photography, mostly because I am not on the street often. I would like to do more, or at least some.

Most of the people here, and I do, too, like to place a person. That means to include enough in the shot to show their surroundings. I just made more of a portrait. In my mind both portrait type shots and wide angle type shots have merit. And Andy's zone is Andy's zone. Keep it up and you will have your zone.

ginger

LiquidOps · March 17, 2005

rutt wrote:

An alternative to selecive color is selecive focus which is a more classical technique. Normally you have to decide to do this at the time you shoot (by using a low f-stop and a lens with good bokah) but it can be done in post as well. See this thread:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=1011

Thanks Rutt.

Selective Focus is actually what I used. In post, I selected the person, inverted my selection, and applied a slight gaussian blur to the image. That gave me the separation a little more from the background.

I've got to get into taking multiple pictures. I think my next step is another memory card

LiquidOps · March 17, 2005

ginger_55 wrote:

This would cut the man out. I will say that alot of these people like people walking by. I don't do street photography, mostly because I am not on the street often. I would like to do more, or at least some.

Most of the people here, and I do, too, like to place a person. That means to include enough in the shot to show their surroundings. I just made more of a portrait. In my mind both portrait type shots and wide angle type shots have merit. And Andy's zone is Andy's zone. Keep it up and you will have your zone.

ginger

Thank You Ginger,

I should have taken more pictures. I'm still learning this and trying to find my own "Zone". My wide angel is about 38mm. I am zoom happy. I guess that's something I should overcome.

hmmm... I wonder if it would be wise to not zoom at all for a while, and see what I get?

What do you think?

ginger_55 · March 17, 2005

LiquidOps wrote:

Thank You Ginger,

I should have taken more pictures. I'm still learning this and trying to find my own "Zone". My wide angel is about 38mm. I am zoom happy. I guess that's something I should overcome.

hmmm... I wonder if it would be wise to not zoom at all for a while, and see what I get?

What do you think?

Yes, we had a wide angle challenge. I kept my camera on 17mm for almost two weeks. I tend to shoot scenics though. When I was younger I shot people and I zoomed a lot too. I mean to the degree that I cropped your photo. I would like to do a lot of shooting of people showing their environments. That is another story.

But I think that would be a great idea, so that you get comfortable with the wide. Also more CF cards. I have two 1 gb, and I could use more, easily.

ginger (That really was/is a good photo of the guitarist)

LiquidOps · March 17, 2005

ginger_55 wrote:

Yes, we had a wide angle challenge. I kept my camera on 17mm for almost two weeks. I tend to shoot scenics though. When I was younger I shot people and I zoomed a lot too. I mean to the degree that I cropped your photo. I would like to do a lot of shooting of people showing their environments. That is another story.

But I think that would be a great idea, so that you get comfortable with the wide. Also more CF cards. I have two 1 gb, and I could use more, easily.

ginger (That really was/is a good photo of the guitarist)

Thank you for replying back again. I wish my camera went that wide. Unfortunately it will not. Not till i can save for a DSLR.

I am going to try a different crop right now. I hope it turns out good.

Steven

rutt · March 18, 2005

LiquidOps wrote:

Thanks Rutt.

Selective Focus is actually what I used. In post, I selected the person, inverted my selection, and applied a slight gaussian blur to the image. That gave me the separation a little more from the background.

I've got to get into taking multiple pictures. I think my next step is another memory card

Yes, but. You can really turn up the gaussian blur. Then what?

LiquidOps · March 18, 2005

rutt wrote:

Yes, but. You can really turn up the gaussian blur. Then what?

I'm not sure what you are asking....

If i turn up the gaussian blur too much, it will look fake... yes no?

maybe i'm looking at this wrong?

or are you stating i should just aim to get more DOF out of camera?

rutt · March 18, 2005

LiquidOps wrote:

I'm not sure what you are asking....

If i turn up the gaussian blur too much, it will look fake... yes no?

How about this? Fake looking?

It started out its life as this:

This is the sort of move I had in mind. You can read how I did this here:
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=12484&postcount=38

LiquidOps · March 18, 2005

rutt wrote:

How about this? Fake looking?

It started out its life as this:

This is the sort of move I had in mind. You can read how I did this here:
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=12484&postcount=38

ok... I see what you're saying now... I shall fiddle with it more tonight...

my Fiance is going to look at Dresses for her Bride's Maids... so i get some Digital Darkroom time

Thanks again Rutt,

Steven

LiquidOps · March 18, 2005

So... as far as going wide angle... would a wide angle add on to my 717 be of bennefit?

Currently, the widest I can go is 38mm I believe. With the 0.7 Wide Angle adapter, I should be able to go 26.6mm. Am I reading this right?

Comments? Suggestions?

Thanks,

Steven