Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
The Soul of a Photo
Page <<first <prev 4 of 11 next> last>>
Jan 14, 2013 07:37:37   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
ezirider wrote:



They all said they saw people there they loved, these are people that died and came back on a surgery table, I just want to see mother and father the grand parents, and yes they saw even dogs they loved


I'm sure you will some day, ezirider. Thanks for your honesty.

Reply
Jan 14, 2013 07:37:37   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
ezirider wrote:



They all said they saw people there they loved, these are people that died and came back on a surgery table, I just want to see mother and father the grand parents, and yes they saw even dogs they loved


I'm sure you will some day, ezirider. Thanks for your honesty.

Reply
Jan 14, 2013 07:39:02   #
Bensson Loc: Maple Ridge/Athabasca Oil Sands
 
Doesn't innovation and new ideas stem from breaking the rules? Not that many years ago, digital images weren't considered an art.

Reply
 
 
Jan 14, 2013 07:39:59   #
nanaval Loc: Cornwall
 
Skellum0 wrote:
Squat lobster. My personal views:

1. Lobster itself is beautiful.
2. It needs something for scale otherwise you completely lose how small is. However, I don't like the fingers, too unsubtle.
3. Love the colours and temperature. Takes me straight to the seaside.
4. Don't love the shadow across the top.

Picture 2.

1. Nice composition.
2. Kind of enigmatic Mona Lisa ish feel.
3. I am not an expert on portraits, but to me you normally soften the picture to draw attention to a feature, commonly the eyes. If there is nothing different then my eyes just kind of drift over.
4. To me it is too washed out and too grainy. It. Feels like you have tried to rescue a photo by making it arty.

Kudos to you for putting them up.
Squat lobster. My personal views: br br 1. Lobste... (show quote)


Hi Skellum0 Thanks for your comments. The Squat Lobster was taken a field trip to the beach with a group from my local U3A. It was on a shell held by someone, sadly there is no time to set it up as every one wanted a picture and due to climbing over rocks I only take my compact. On the other hand If I not gone with the group I would have had no picture. As my Wildlife group would say Its a pictorial picture.
The portrait was sharp when taken and I just tried to alter it to get a different picture.

Reply
Jan 14, 2013 07:57:05   #
nanaval Loc: Cornwall
 
fotkaman wrote:
nanaval wrote:
Linda From Maine wrote:
Question #1 - Do you enjoy a technically imperfect photo that seems to have heart and soul and emotion and personality - or does the lack of technical perfection get in the way of your enjoyment?

Question #2 - since this is my first participation in an internet forum, I'm curious to know why some feel it necessary to be rude and crude, rather than just "stepping out of the room?"


Very interesting reading, here are two pictures that were criticized, any comments welcome, Squat lobster: I left the fingers in to give a scale as to the size of it. Was told it would be better without them. Girl with Flower:was told it was good but the eyes were not sharp, I wanted a soft all over picture.
quote=Linda From Maine Question #1 - Do you enjoy... (show quote)


You were absolutely right at the first image for the size-reference had changed my perception of the critter. Some may argue about your choice for the size-reference object, though, but it definitely belongs to a documentary photography.
As for the other, well, it's a matter of taste, and you cannot argue about taste. I, for one, would try to get the eyes a bit sharper, no grain (I am not against grainy pictures, just here I am not sure), and a soft focus at the point of actual focusing, rather than blurring during pp.
quote=nanaval quote=Linda From Maine Question #1... (show quote)


Hi Fotkaman Thanks for your comments, The size of the Squat Lobster was so small it was on a shell and held so we could get shots. I was out with my loca U3A group so was lucky to get it. The leader knew what to look for and every one wasted a picture.
The blurring on the portrait was done pp on a sharp picture.

Reply
Jan 14, 2013 08:08:53   #
fotkaman Loc: Earth
 
nanaval wrote:
fotkaman wrote:
nanaval wrote:
Linda From Maine wrote:
Question #1 - Do you enjoy a technically imperfect photo that seems to have heart and soul and emotion and personality - or does the lack of technical perfection get in the way of your enjoyment?

Question #2 - since this is my first participation in an internet forum, I'm curious to know why some feel it necessary to be rude and crude, rather than just "stepping out of the room?"


Very interesting reading, here are two pictures that were criticized, any comments welcome, Squat lobster: I left the fingers in to give a scale as to the size of it. Was told it would be better without them. Girl with Flower:was told it was good but the eyes were not sharp, I wanted a soft all over picture.
quote=Linda From Maine Question #1 - Do you enjoy... (show quote)


You were absolutely right at the first image for the size-reference had changed my perception of the critter. Some may argue about your choice for the size-reference object, though, but it definitely belongs to a documentary photography.
As for the other, well, it's a matter of taste, and you cannot argue about taste. I, for one, would try to get the eyes a bit sharper, no grain (I am not against grainy pictures, just here I am not sure), and a soft focus at the point of actual focusing, rather than blurring during pp.
quote=nanaval quote=Linda From Maine Question #1... (show quote)


Hi Fotkaman Thanks for your comments, The size of the Squat Lobster was so small it was on a shell and held so we could get shots. I was out with my loca U3A group so was lucky to get it. The leader knew what to look for and every one wasted a picture.
The blurring on the portrait was done pp on a sharp picture.
quote=fotkaman quote=nanaval quote=Linda From M... (show quote)


Soft-focusing in the camera, using manual focus, stopping JUST short of being dead-on, shallow depth of focus (wide-opened apperture, higher ISO, short exposure time), should produce this dream-like, soft image.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-88632-1.html

Reply
Jan 14, 2013 08:15:07   #
nanaval Loc: Cornwall
 
fotkaman wrote:
nanaval wrote:
fotkaman wrote:
nanaval wrote:
Linda From Maine wrote:
Question #1 - Do you enjoy a technically imperfect photo that seems to have heart and soul and emotion and personality - or does the lack of technical perfection get in the way of your enjoyment?

Question #2 - since this is my first participation in an internet forum, I'm curious to know why some feel it necessary to be rude and crude, rather than just "stepping out of the room?"


Very interesting reading, here are two pictures that were criticized, any comments welcome, Squat lobster: I left the fingers in to give a scale as to the size of it. Was told it would be better without them. Girl with Flower:was told it was good but the eyes were not sharp, I wanted a soft all over picture.
quote=Linda From Maine Question #1 - Do you enjoy... (show quote)


You were absolutely right at the first image for the size-reference had changed my perception of the critter. Some may argue about your choice for the size-reference object, though, but it definitely belongs to a documentary photography.
As for the other, well, it's a matter of taste, and you cannot argue about taste. I, for one, would try to get the eyes a bit sharper, no grain (I am not against grainy pictures, just here I am not sure), and a soft focus at the point of actual focusing, rather than blurring during pp.
quote=nanaval quote=Linda From Maine Question #1... (show quote)


Hi Fotkaman Thanks for your comments, The size of the Squat Lobster was so small it was on a shell and held so we could get shots. I was out with my loca U3A group so was lucky to get it. The leader knew what to look for and every one wasted a picture.
The blurring on the portrait was done pp on a sharp picture.
quote=fotkaman quote=nanaval quote=Linda From M... (show quote)


Soft-focusing in the camera, using manual focus, stopping JUST short of being dead-on, shallow depth of focus (wide-opened apperture, higher ISO, short exposure time), should produce this dream-like, soft image.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-88632-1.html
quote=nanaval quote=fotkaman quote=nanaval quo... (show quote)


Thanks I will give it a try.

Reply
 
 
Jan 14, 2013 08:46:05   #
photonutbob Loc: ME,CT,MA
 
Hi Linda From Maine: Remember beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Reply
Jan 14, 2013 09:01:33   #
Pentony Loc: Earth Traveller
 
Response to:
#1. It maybe in the eye of the beholder. I enjoy photographing creating albeit in camera controlling or in PP. Your photographic "eye" is most appreciated.

#2. It is difficult to ignore ignorance, stupidity and down right rudeness. There is never any excuse nor acceptance of them. Rude people tend to be the most ignorant people, least educated and without class as in being sub-human. They "show," expound, there ignorance. Wish there was a way to put them off the site.

In addition:
#3. Criticism is appreciated so long as it is done in a constructive way as in
a. say what seems to be inappropriate or wrong using positive comments
b. then offer positive suggestions for improvement(s), additions and/or changes.

Thank you for your comments and inputs.

Reply
Jan 14, 2013 09:05:22   #
fotkaman Loc: Earth
 
nanaval wrote:
fotkaman wrote:
nanaval wrote:
fotkaman wrote:
nanaval wrote:
Linda From Maine wrote:
Question #1 - Do you enjoy a technically imperfect photo that seems to have heart and soul and emotion and personality - or does the lack of technical perfection get in the way of your enjoyment?

Question #2 - since this is my first participation in an internet forum, I'm curious to know why some feel it necessary to be rude and crude, rather than just "stepping out of the room?"


Very interesting reading, here are two pictures that were criticized, any comments welcome, Squat lobster: I left the fingers in to give a scale as to the size of it. Was told it would be better without them. Girl with Flower:was told it was good but the eyes were not sharp, I wanted a soft all over picture.
quote=Linda From Maine Question #1 - Do you enjoy... (show quote)


You were absolutely right at the first image for the size-reference had changed my perception of the critter. Some may argue about your choice for the size-reference object, though, but it definitely belongs to a documentary photography.
As for the other, well, it's a matter of taste, and you cannot argue about taste. I, for one, would try to get the eyes a bit sharper, no grain (I am not against grainy pictures, just here I am not sure), and a soft focus at the point of actual focusing, rather than blurring during pp.
quote=nanaval quote=Linda From Maine Question #1... (show quote)


Hi Fotkaman Thanks for your comments, The size of the Squat Lobster was so small it was on a shell and held so we could get shots. I was out with my loca U3A group so was lucky to get it. The leader knew what to look for and every one wasted a picture.
The blurring on the portrait was done pp on a sharp picture.
quote=fotkaman quote=nanaval quote=Linda From M... (show quote)


Soft-focusing in the camera, using manual focus, stopping JUST short of being dead-on, shallow depth of focus (wide-opened apperture, higher ISO, short exposure time), should produce this dream-like, soft image.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-88632-1.html
quote=nanaval quote=fotkaman quote=nanaval quo... (show quote)


Thanks I will give it a try.
quote=fotkaman quote=nanaval quote=fotkaman qu... (show quote)


Did you check the link I provided?
Here: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-88632-1.html

Reply
Jan 14, 2013 09:11:24   #
Robbie7 Loc: Northampton. England
 
Hi Linda :-)

Q1 Many of the members on this site and me also to some degree have or still are more concerned with technicalities than creative photography. I sent a PM to a member who pointed this out to me, to thank him for opening my eyes. IMO a photograph doesn't have to be technically perfect to be a great image. Blur, noise etc etc can enhance an image when used creatively.


Q2 The best thing about this site is, most of the members are interested mainly in photography, The majority are intelligent and are very helpful. The last site
I was on which was under the name of a well known camera manufacturer, developed into an old peoples social site where the contribution to the chat forum far out weighed the photograpy input, The site also had its Trolls young and old but the members tended to ignore these or put them in their place and relate to the people they knew had some thing sensible or informative to say. regards
:-) ps nothing against old people, I'm 66..lol

Reply
 
 
Jan 14, 2013 09:17:11   #
emmons267 Loc: Arizona, Valley of the Sun
 
Linda From Maine wrote:
Question #1 - Do you enjoy a technically imperfect photo that seems to have heart and soul and emotion and personality - or does the lack of technical perfection get in the way of your enjoyment?

Question #2 - since this is my first participation in an internet forum, I'm curious to know why some feel it necessary to be rude and crude, rather than just "stepping out of the room?"


I assume you are comparing jpeg and raw - i prefer the photo with soul, just as I prefer live music.

Reply
Jan 14, 2013 09:25:19   #
hb3 Loc: Texas
 
Linda From Maine wrote:


Question #1 - Do you enjoy a technically imperfect photo that seems to have heart and soul and emotion and personality - or does the lack of technical perfection get in the way of a good photo.


Question #2 - since this is my first participation in an internet forum, I'm curious to know why some feel it necessary to be rude and crude, rather than just "stepping out of the room?"


Technical perfection is not necessary and certainly not sufficient to make for a good photo. However, technical perfection does, in most cases, add to a good photo.


No clue; save the need for recognition, albeit negative.

HB3

Reply
Jan 14, 2013 09:27:45   #
ozdude Loc: Brisbane Australia
 
Hi Linda great questions. I haven't been a Hog for long and I think it's a privilege to be welcomed by a great community who share one common interest.
1. I am not a scientist nor am I an art critic. I guess I'm somewhere in the middle. If I see a shot that shows some thought and adds some passion I will appreciate it for what it is. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We are all driven by different things but we all love our photography.
2. I'm a great believer in karma. If you are a bully and show no real teaching skill you will not be taken seriously as an authority. If you encourage and suggest you will get the respect of the community. If you talk the talk you better be able to walk the walk. Be nice and everybody will be nice right back at you. :)

Reply
Jan 14, 2013 09:47:42   #
billwassmann Loc: Emerson, NJ
 
What is technical perfection? A photo is great because of its lighting, composition and emotional appeal. Technical perfection is akin to beauty - in the eye of the beholder.

Why are some not nice? Who the Hell knows? They should all be as sweet as me and thee.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 11 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.