Brent wrote:
> Anyway, I've put up my favourite shots from the 2nd and 3rd films.
> The first film was mostly taken of the Great Wall in China, but I
> haven't had it scanned yet.
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/brent_rutherford/Learning_with_OM/
>
> Comments welcome - I am still getting used to the cameras, and think
> my composition needs a lot of help.
I've now had a chance to look through these images. I don't see
composition problems in general. A few things I noticed:
Hotel Bar is a strong composition. I'd never take it, but I think it's good.
I'd prefer Tea Party with more DOF and/or the DOF shifted forward.
Water Baby is a lovely catch, very natural and contemplative. I\'Twere
mine, I'd crop of the left close to her back and burn in the remaining
bright, busy stuff behind her head.
Wine Glass is right down my alley.
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/A710IS/slides/IMG_0042.html>
Can you guess what this is?
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Monterey%20-%20June%202006/Carmel/slides/DSCF0991.html>
Or this?
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/A710IS/slides/IMG_0064cr.html>
Our Beautiful Girl is just exquisite. As with some other images I note
below, I think it would be even better with the shirt toned down.
Where's your feet? Who has a problem with composition? This one is perfect.
Fatboy is another strong composition.
Lily & Allison at Nan & Pa's house is one where it seems to me the
composition can be greatly strengthened with a strong crop to vertical
format.
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Rutherford/Films2-3/slides/picture-15a.html>
Buddies is a terrific capture, love it! That said, there are a couple of
technical things that may be done to make it stronger, in my opinion.
First, it suffers from compressed highlights, as I discuss below.
Second, see all those out of focus areas in the background that have
become partially or wholly bright circles with dark centers, making a
lot of unnatural looking, edgy, bright points? I don't know of you know
the name for that, and don't want to throw around undefinded jargon. The
term is bokeh, from the Japanese for blur or focus, or some such. Good
bokeh has the OOF parts of the subject smoothly blurring out from
brighter central points.
And this shot has bad bokeh, adding distracting highlights and a busy
look at odds with the primary tone. Easily enough dealt with. I may have
gone farther in blurring than others would, but this is just an
illustration, to show what's possible.
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Rutherford/Films2-3/slides/picture-20a.html>
Finally, I found the highlights all compressed together as largely
undifferentiated bright blobs in several shots. The brightness could be
a difference between my monitor and yours, but even if I lower overall
brightness, the lack of tonal distinction is still there. Generally,
they look better to me with those tones spread out more. I've taken the
liberty of posting before and after examples of a few images here.
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Rutherford/Films2-3/index.html>
In Forbidden City, for example, you can see how the foreground fence
regains its surface detail. In Artisan's Workshop, I did the same thing
to the shadows, bringing up the shop interior just a bit.
Moose messing with images you post on the list may be either a blessing
or curse, depending on your viewpoint. If you don't like it, just let me
know. It just seems to me a picture IS worth the proverbial mess of
words here.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|