On 1/24/2011 2:21 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2011, at 11:06 AM, Moose wrote:
>>> "Lonely beach, vantage point"
>>> http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/023/e/6/lonely_beach_vantage_point_by_philosomatographer-d37voma.jpg
>>> (90mm Macro wide open, Fomapan 100, printed on 8x10in RC Multigrade
>>> paper - glossy)
>> I like the subject/composition. I'd clone out the bright spot on the right.
>> Just me, I suppose, ('cause it's a great lens, right?) but I just am not
>> comfortable with the bokeh. Seems like the background is OOF about the right
>> amount, but not in the right way. Well, the figures on the beach are ok, but
>> the buildings and trees bug me. Like there's some kind of edginess hiding
>> under the softness? Wish I could describe it better.
>>
>> . . .
> Hmm. First of all, the bright spot on the right is not some kind of
> reflection, it's an out-of-focus light in
> the background.
Well, first of all, I didn't think or assume that it was a reflection. I wasn't
concerned as to what it might be, just
that I found it distracting while not adding anything to the image.
> Honestly, Moose, for the life of me I cannot imagine a softer, less-edgier
> rendering of OOF areas than the 90 Macro, and I feel this is represented in
> my image! (funny how people can see things so differently). There is simply
> nothing edgy about it!
I know, I know. It should be a really lovely shot. It probably is for almost
everyone. The bokeh just doesn't please my
eye. I don't know how to describe how or why, and I may be the only person on
the planet for which that's true.
I post plenty of images with what I consider less than ideal bokeh. I wouldn't
have said anything about it if the thrust
of your two posts weren't about the subtleties of rendering or "drawing" by
lenses.
> . . . Perhaps I participated in this, but we live in a time now where people
> sadly look at the "nature" of the OOF are even more than the nature of the
> in-focus subject!
> That's just not right...
Hey, first thing I said was "I like the subject/composition." If I don't like
the image overall, I"m not likely to
notice or comment on more subtle aspects.
> Of course, the edginess you see may be due to my sharpening for web viewing
> (always a contentious topic with you! :-)
Not just with me, within me! Trying to get it right drives me crazy some days
and with some images. Interesting thought,
that the problem may not be with lens or print, but with web
preparation/presentation.
>>> "The Specialists"
>>> http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/023/d/8/the_specialists_by_philosomatographer-d37vqba.jpg
>>> (21mm at f/4, Kodak TMY2-400, printed on 8x10in RC Multigrade paper -
>>> glossy)
>> The body positions of the guys are perfect. I like that there is detail held
>> through the windows. I like the tones in the many various kinds of
>> reflections. I'd try cropping everything to the left of the left hoist
>> upright. It seems to me it doesn't add anything to the story and losing it
>> would tighten up the image.
> Thanks, Moose! Your cropping observation is very valid. I guess one easily
> falls into a common trap: If one took a very wide image with a 21mm lens, one
> is often hesitant to crop away too much of that FOV that one "paid for" -
Yup, been there, bought the T-shirt. :-) Then there's the shot where it
isn't quite wide enough for the composition I
want . . . That's one reason I mostly use zooms. With the 17-35, I can frame
many shots to the composition I like in the
camera.
> but in this case, there is a strong argument to lose the outer left area.
Yup, just doesn't contribute. Nothing happening there and that nothing is
outside a strong, natural frame.
> When I make another print, I'll give it a try (no point in cropping my
> digital posts online, what I really care about are the prints, and these
> scans are absolutely unaltered from the prints, except for sharpening).
Yes, I understood that. Otherwise, I would have suggested straightening up that
left upright, so it would make a nice
straight left boundary, "framing the action".
> Thank you again. Your cropping suggestion might just turn a nice print into a
> great one.
Yeah, it's a goodie.
> Dawid (still-disagrees-with-Moose-about-the-90-Macro) Loubser
That's why there are odds in horse races 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/
|
