You don't have to justify whatever you've done or didn't do. I just
give my opinion when asked. Apparently no one else even noticed what I did.
Chuck Norcutt
Brian Swale wrote:
> Chuck wrote
>> The second one works better because it doesn't have the light colored
>> vertical line running through the background. If it was mine I'd clone
>> out the line and go with #1.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>> Brian Swale wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Top two links
>>> http://www.brianswale.com/zuikoholics/
>>> Enjoy, if you're that way inclined.
>
> To tell you the truth, I scarcely noticed the line. These are two shots from
> a
> set of about 10.
>
> The set-up was laughable. That flower is quite large; about 18 - 20 cm
> across
> at the front; the plant in a plant-pot. How was I to capture it the best way?
>
> Currently, I'm living most of the time in a rather small flat. My daughter
> has
> bought a LARGE electric treadmill to exercise her dogs on (long story) and is
> storing it in my flat ('nother long story) where I have placed it just
> inside the
> front door. It is sitting folded with the black running belt nearly vertical.
> In plan
> dimensions the whole device takes up about 70 x 100 cm of my floorspace;
> 160cm high. And heavy. The whole machine is made of black plastic, but it is
> a trifle reflective. However, it is big enough to provide a backdrop for even
> this
> flower.
> So I pulled the machine forward so that it was slightly in the light of the
> open
> doorway, and turned it to the left so that no (or very little) direct light
> hit the flat
> running surface which is 40 cm wide. Then positioned the flower in front of
> the
> running surface in the diffuse light from the doorway (it was a morning with
> much low cloud), and took the exposure from the flower. Hand-held, IS on,
> with the E-510. I think one at least is at f/16. I was somewhat in
> contortionist
> mode to get a good angle. Just one significant light-source; cloud through
> the
> open doorway.
> I did well to exclude so much :-) That's my story anyway.
> The flower petals actually are (were) pretty white, but I found that if I let
> the
> camera yield that colour, the details got blown right out.
> If you don't know that then it doesn't really matter what colour it is. This
> is "my"
> interpretation !! And much of the interest is in the texture details of the
> petals.
> The only changes I made to those two images for web purposes were to
> resize in Faststone Image Viewer, sharpen (about 3 or 4) and save at about
> 90%. With so much of the image as black, the file size wasn't huge; they are
> 800 x 1067, 159 - 169 kb; that's all. Down from about 6MB original.
> The vertical line is part of the structure of the treadmill which caught the
> open-
> doorway light ... ... I managed to exclude all the remainder of the
> structure !!
>
> All done within 20 minutes.
>
> If you save them & open and play with gamma in Faststone on them, I feel
> sure you could bring up all sorts of unwanted detail from the background. But
> all to no point.
>
> Brian Swale.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|