On 9/12/2011 8:13 AM, Chris Trask wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Take this shot in overcast light, and it's just nothing.
>> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Home/Garden_Summer_2011&image=_MG_1851ia80.jpg>
>>
> The items in the background are distracting.
Interesting. I left them as is as I thought they both added dimension to the
image, being the same things as the main
subject, and thus showing depth and they grounded it, so it wasn't like
something hanging is isolated space. I'll look
into dimming and perhaps softening them, but don't think I'll eliminate them.
I know, for you, it's all in thinking through the original shot. For me, not
necessarily so. If you'd been around for
the post in which I originally put up these images, you'd know I was sitting in
a lounge chair, reading, dozing,
enjoying the late afternoon sun, but with camera at hand, when he light on our
flowers grabbed me. The first shots in
the gallery were casually shot without bothering to get up. So, no thoughtful
composition and moving around to get it
just right.
> A different angle showing the face of at least one flower would dramatically
> change the overall tone.
Yup, did that. A couple of those are in that gallery. Others didn't make it -
busy and/or boring, to my eye.
>> Would even the bee make this one interesting in the shade?
>> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Home/Garden_Summer_2011&image=_MG_1852cria60.jpg>
> Even without the bee this would be a somewhat artsy photo,
As intended. The light grabbed my by the trigger finger and said "Shoot me!"
> but the presence of the bee gives a broader sense of subject, adding more
> sense of life to the scene.
Thanks!
>> I could go on, but here's just one more example of luscious
>> tones, shadows and shades that wouldn't be there without the
>> direct
>> light.<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Home/Garden_Summer_2011&image=_MG_2656cr.jpg>
>>
> This photo is intriguing, to the point of being sexy. Oh... can we
> say that here? :{b
Oh I think we can say that. But it doesn't convey the sort of sexy. I think
voluptuous says it better. ;-)
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
