I thought I would post another juxtaposition shot before the thread disappears to wherever it is that all threads disappear to.
Graham
SS ---thanks for starting what has turned out to be an excellent discussion and learning experience without any equipment talk. Lots of talented people on this forum! Rich
Nightski-thanks for the link to the luminous landscape-critique--Rich
I appreciate critique and comments. I use them to further my photography learning journey.
To reduce transmission clutter, I wish to thank all who provide a critique and comments in advance.
Thank you.
dave sproul wrote:
I appreciate critique and comments. I use them to further my photography learning journey.
To reduce transmission clutter, I wish to thank all who provide a critique and comments in advance.
Thank you.
Dave, thanks for participating.
If someone wishes to critique I'm sure you will benefit. But do keep in mind, that the critique there has been thus far has centered around VERY specific aspects of composition.
I hate to suggest you go through and read all 50 pages, but I'm sure you probably have plenty to show here that fits those parameters.
Again thanks and hope someone takes on your shot!! ;-)
SS
SharpShooter wrote:
Every now and then I need to post something that people can relate to. Everybody can relate to landscapes and sunsets. The interesting thing about sunsets is that there is a sunset every day, no matter where we are. So there is a lot of opportunity to shoot sunsets.
But my philosophy about sunsets is the same as my philosophy about sports and nature shots. I don't want my sunsets to be standing on second base with their arms at their sides! :lol:
So to that end I try to juxtapose my sunsets as well.
Just like Jim planted a tree right in the middle of his sunset, I dropped a 3 story high rock right in front of mine and then shot it tight!!
So is this shot about the sunset, or is it about the rock?! Or is it about both? Is it even a landscape?
That part of the story is not up to me. That part is up to my shot to convey to the viewer how THEY/YOU perceive the shot. Enjoy ;-)
SS
Every now and then I need to post something that p... (
show quote)
Looks like a doorway to a magical land to me.
SharpShooter wrote:
Dave, thanks for participating.
If someone wishes to critique I'm sure you will benefit. But do keep in mind, that the critique there has been thus far has centered around VERY specific aspects of composition.
I hate to suggest you go through and read all 50 pages, but I'm sure you probably have plenty to show here that fits those parameters.
Again thanks and hope someone takes on your shot!! ;-)
SS
Sorry, Have been following and reading the composition thread ; but I just posted in the wrong area.
I am going to have to pay closer attention to what I am doing and not what I think I am doing
Nightski wrote:
Kind of ... I'll have to see what I can come up with. Wish I could have a visual of what you mean with the mushrooms. I have a spider web shot that might be like that ... I'll post it.
Nightski, ok, ok, I looked at the famous path! :lol:
I was thinking, how could I have missed it?
Well, it turns out, at least to me, that there is NO way to know that there is a path there!! Nightski, if you want to figure the path into the composition, you have to show it to us. It is up to you the photographer to show us any element you want us to see. It can be very clear or almost non-existent as in your path. Your spider web is pretty much dead sharp in the center. The background and path are pretty much just shades of color in the background. It could be dead center, but it still needs to open up to the rest of the pic so that its recognizable. That's your job as the photographer.
That's why I said somewhere that I will bracket my DoF so I have a choice latter just how I want it to be seen.
I'm going to post a shot were I felt I controlled what I want you to see and how much of it I want you to see.
I can't take it for granted that you will know what something is unless you can actually see it. The viewer ultimately decides but we need to guide them if we want them to see what we want them to see.
This might be just me, but mysterious just means we were not able to make our image communicate.
Remember that you were there and we were not. You know what is there, we don't! ;-)
SS
Juxta?
7 degrees fahrenheit with a 23 mph wind ....
SharpShooter wrote:
I'm going to post a shot were I felt I controlled what I want you to see and how much of it I want you to see. SS
My first reaction was - wow, nice shot. My next reaction was to tight crop 4:5 the lower right corner of the rock. My wife saw it and her reaction was - Wow! Look at that! The colors and textures make a very nice photo by themselves.
This is waaay off topic, but I couldn't resist...
Nightski wrote:
Juxta?
7 degrees fahrenheit with a 23 mph wind ....
I have been following along. I am guessing that the second one is. It will be interesting to see what the experts have to say.
SharpShooter wrote:
Nightski, ok, ok, I looked at the famous path! :lol:
I was thinking, how could I have missed it?
Well, it turns out, at least to me, that there is NO way to know that there is a path there!! Nightski, if you want to figure the path into the composition, you have to show it to us. It is up to you the photographer to show us any element you want us to see. It can be very clear or almost non-existent as in your path. Your spider web is pretty much dead sharp in the center. The background and path are pretty much just shades of color in the background. It could be dead center, but it still needs to open up to the rest of the pic so that its recognizable. That's your job as the photographer.
That's why I said somewhere that I will bracket my DoF so I have a choice latter just how I want it to be seen.
I'm going to post a shot were I felt I controlled what I want you to see and how much of it I want you to see.
I can't take it for granted that you will know what something is unless you can actually see it. The viewer ultimately decides but we need to guide them if we want them to see what we want them to see.
This might be just me, but mysterious just means we were not able to make our image communicate.
Remember that you were there and we were not. You know what is there, we don't! ;-)
SS
Nightski, ok, ok, I looked at the famous path! :l... (
show quote)
Got it ... and I did want to adjust my aperture to bracket, but the web fell down right after I snapped the shutter. The webs were heavy with dew that day and a small breeze came ...
I see what you mean .. I know it's a path .. others don't. If I did have that a bit clearer it would be juxtaposition though .. right?
BTW .. I love your pic .. but were you annoyed by that cloud?
Nightski wrote:
Got it ... and I did want to adjust my aperture to bracket, but the web fell down right after I snapped the shutter. The webs were heavy with dew that day and a small breeze came ...
I see what you mean .. I know it's a path .. others don't. If I did have that a bit clearer it would be juxtaposition though .. right?
Nightski, probably not, at least not from the angle you originally shot it at.
You have to compose your shot with the juxtaposition in mind and that would usually be at the time you saw it.
I'm sure you are starting to see it and the wheels are already turning!
But you were using plenty of juxtaposition in your other shots before, even if it didn't have a label yet.
But the more we can start to see, our photographs will climb to another level. I have plenty of shots and think, why did I even take that?
It's like being a runner and getting faster and faster(when we were young), slow just doesn't impress you anymore!!
That was the whole point of this whole post, to explore aspects that for the most part I have just not seen discussed here before. For sure, these concepts are not taught in Intro to Digi 101! :lol: that was the point, to open some people eye to see beyond where we normally shoot which is in the rule of 1/3's.
As Jim was careful to point out, that the basics are still the primary building blocks of composition. It's up to us to progress beyond that.
Museums are full of this stuff. I hear people here on the Hog talk about work in museums as being pure trash. It's only trash if you don't see it for what it is or understand it. ;-)
SharpShooter wrote:
Nightski, probably not, at least not from the angle you originally shot it at.
You have to compose your shot with the juxtaposition in mind and that would usually be at the time you saw it.
I'm sure you are starting to see it and the wheels are already turning!
But you were using plenty of juxtaposition in your other shots before, even if it didn't have a label yet.
But the more we can start to see, our photographs will climb to another level. I have plenty of shots and think, why did I even take that?
It's like being a runner and getting faster and faster(when we were young), slow just doesn't impress you anymore!!
That was the whole point of this whole post, to explore aspects that for the most part I have just not seen discussed here before. For sure, these concepts are not taught in Intro to Digi 101! :lol: that was the point, to open some people eye to see beyond where we normally shoot which is in the rule of 1/3's.
As Jim was careful to point out, that the basics are still the primary building blocks of composition. It's up to us to progress beyond that.
Museums are full of this stuff. I hear people here on the Hog talk about work in museums as being pure trash. It's only trash if you don't see it for what it is or understand it. ;-)
Nightski, probably not, at least not from the angl... (
show quote)
Thank you, SS. I will be sad to see this thread end. It has been so fun and interesting.
I never forget to keep concentrating on the basics. It's fun to have some "Extra Credit" work to do sometimes though.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.