Chinasaur
Well-known
"Probably" Aperture mode on Hexar AF 'or' Manual F16@200. Kodak BW400CN 400@200. Yellow filter.
Too much contrast? Crap composition/framing? Overexposed? Good? Bad? Sucks rocks?
Too much contrast? Crap composition/framing? Overexposed? Good? Bad? Sucks rocks?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I don't mind the tones and contrast but for me it's too busy. I would have reduced the foreground a fair amount or maybe shot it from a lower perspective if that was possible to open up the sky a bit.
back alley
IMAGES
maybe if you shot in on digital?
just kidding!!!!!!!!
it looks ok but i prefer darker tones and looking less like it was shot on a sunny day.
just kidding!!!!!!!!
it looks ok but i prefer darker tones and looking less like it was shot on a sunny day.
ferider
Veteran
I really like it - should be great 20 inches wide on the wall.
Roland.
Roland.
Larry H-L
Well-known
Interesting image with nice patterns, but for me, the light is too harsh. Earlier or later in the day would help IMHO.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Despite the contrast, it's just too monotone for me. Kinda like a Long John's Silver's fish platter. Everything is the same gray color.
FrankS
Registered User
What Keith said.
peterm1
Veteran
I will make a suggestion since you ask. I hope it helps. I will focus only on composition - I will leave the technical aspects to others.
To me this photo suffers somewhat from the lack of a specific subject. Is it the concrete in front? Is it the wood pylons behind that? Is it the scenery beyond? I am not sure. And lacking specificity dilutes the effect of the image. Having said this the diagonal element leads the eye nicely into the image from the front right to the left rear and that helps it somewhat.
But I can also see that the light is quite directional from the right and a more interesting shot might make better use of the interplay of light and shadow, playing up the contrast to use it as a photographic element (You cant change the light - but you canchange how you use it.)...................................
My personal philosophy of photography is much like Robert Capa's - "If your photo is not good enough, then the chances are that its because you are not close enough!" (Well - words to that effect!) Admittedly he was talking about war reportage. But I have always figured that if he can say this when someone is shooting at him, then its good enough advice for me when I am safe and sound and have the luxury to position myself wherever I like. So I always look for an interesting angle.
My initial observation is that what might be interesting in this photo are the patterns formed by the concrete and / or the pylons. To do justice to them, it would help to get in close and concentrate only on the pattern, while leaving all the extraneous stuff out. I say this because I firmly believe that you can often convey more about a landscape or cityscape type of subject by getting an interesting detail shot than you can by standing back and trying to fit everything in.
Let the detail suggest the totality of the scene and let the viewer interpret it. This is frequently a much more interesting way to represent a subject than an overall shot taken of the whole scene.
Here are a couple of examples of what I am talking about and of what I sometimes try for. In each case the subjects themselves are pretty ordinary - but what improves them are the patterns formed by getting in close. (Well I think so anyway.) I think I would have tried something like this although my examples are all cityscapes.
Hope the above helps. And BTW no offence.
DSC_1953a1 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
_DSC1171-Edita by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
DSC_4589a by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
To me this photo suffers somewhat from the lack of a specific subject. Is it the concrete in front? Is it the wood pylons behind that? Is it the scenery beyond? I am not sure. And lacking specificity dilutes the effect of the image. Having said this the diagonal element leads the eye nicely into the image from the front right to the left rear and that helps it somewhat.
But I can also see that the light is quite directional from the right and a more interesting shot might make better use of the interplay of light and shadow, playing up the contrast to use it as a photographic element (You cant change the light - but you canchange how you use it.)...................................
My personal philosophy of photography is much like Robert Capa's - "If your photo is not good enough, then the chances are that its because you are not close enough!" (Well - words to that effect!) Admittedly he was talking about war reportage. But I have always figured that if he can say this when someone is shooting at him, then its good enough advice for me when I am safe and sound and have the luxury to position myself wherever I like. So I always look for an interesting angle.
My initial observation is that what might be interesting in this photo are the patterns formed by the concrete and / or the pylons. To do justice to them, it would help to get in close and concentrate only on the pattern, while leaving all the extraneous stuff out. I say this because I firmly believe that you can often convey more about a landscape or cityscape type of subject by getting an interesting detail shot than you can by standing back and trying to fit everything in.
Let the detail suggest the totality of the scene and let the viewer interpret it. This is frequently a much more interesting way to represent a subject than an overall shot taken of the whole scene.
Here are a couple of examples of what I am talking about and of what I sometimes try for. In each case the subjects themselves are pretty ordinary - but what improves them are the patterns formed by getting in close. (Well I think so anyway.) I think I would have tried something like this although my examples are all cityscapes.
Hope the above helps. And BTW no offence.
DSC_1953a1 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
_DSC1171-Edita by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
DSC_4589a by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
Last edited:
Chinasaur
Well-known
All...yep.. good input. Too bright is the consensus.and lack of focus..busy..
Ok. So 2 questions pls:
1. So in bright light (sunny 16), I might use 400@300 vs 200? Or use box speed to make up for the wash out???
2. I had 3 zones in there..so maybe would have been better with only the foreground and make that the entire focus? (I kinda thought the composition had issues but wasn't sure what they were..)
Grazie. And appreciated.
Ok. So 2 questions pls:
1. So in bright light (sunny 16), I might use 400@300 vs 200? Or use box speed to make up for the wash out???
2. I had 3 zones in there..so maybe would have been better with only the foreground and make that the entire focus? (I kinda thought the composition had issues but wasn't sure what they were..)
Grazie. And appreciated.
ferider
Veteran
The blacks are black, and the light greys in the foreground are perfectly toned.
I like the different lines and their directions, the diagonals from the concrete, the vertical ones from the wood in very different shades, and the horizon being just slightly off. It's an abstract, but a great one. Being busy is part of it, IMO.
Again, I suggest to print it before you think you did anything wrong. Paper will tell you differently than screen. Depending how you print, tones might change again, and certainly be richer - remember you are seeing 8 bit grey tones in your published jpeg.
If you had the same picture with a nude jumping off into the water, the guys here would love the picture, and nobody would complain about exposure.
Roland.
I like the different lines and their directions, the diagonals from the concrete, the vertical ones from the wood in very different shades, and the horizon being just slightly off. It's an abstract, but a great one. Being busy is part of it, IMO.
Again, I suggest to print it before you think you did anything wrong. Paper will tell you differently than screen. Depending how you print, tones might change again, and certainly be richer - remember you are seeing 8 bit grey tones in your published jpeg.
If you had the same picture with a nude jumping off into the water, the guys here would love the picture, and nobody would complain about exposure.
Roland.
Last edited:
Ranchu
Veteran
I think the tonality is ok, I think the biggest problem is the lack of separation between the rocks and the poles in the water. They are both interesting things, I don't like the visual confusion of which one ends where. I think I'd opt for the opposite of Keith, get higher, shoot down, get rid of some sky. Probably no ladders handy there though. Cool place!
loquax ludens
Well-known
For me it's not too busy. I like it. The concrete blocks in the foreground lead my eye to the pylons in the middle. I agree that a tighter focus on those elements of the photo would improve it, but it still holds my interest as it is.
I would give it more exposure on the print overall, and print it to a higher contrast to emphasize the play of light and dark tones, making it more abstract in the process. Since the sky is there, I'd burn it in to bring out the clouds.
I would give it more exposure on the print overall, and print it to a higher contrast to emphasize the play of light and dark tones, making it more abstract in the process. Since the sky is there, I'd burn it in to bring out the clouds.
dave lackey
Veteran
The blacks are black, and the light greys in the foreground are perfectly toned.
I like the different lines and their directions, the diagonals from the concrete, the vertical ones from the wood in very different shades, and the horizon being just slightly off. It's an abstract, but a great one. Being busy is part of it, IMO.
Again, I suggest to print it before you think you did anything wrong. Paper will tell you differently than screen. Depending how you print, tones might change again, and certainly be richer - remember you are seeing 8 bit grey tones in your published jpeg.
If you had the same picture with a nude jumping off into the water, the guys here would love the picture, and nobody would complain about exposure.
Roland.
Well, Roland hit it on the head, dead on! The problem with the photo is you forgot the nude woman jumping into the water!
How true it seems on RFF!KenR
Well-known
Agree with the postings that there is too much of the same shade of gray. A different time of day with more shadows might help. Closer viewpoint to emphasize the concrete or a longer lens to do the same might also help. More dramatic clouds would also change the monotony.
Requin
Established
There's not enough difference between your subject and the background? Or: what is your subject? Robert Capa said: let the subject fill your frame ... then do 3 steps forward.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Not too busy.
But the picture is divided.
On the upper side, it's tranquil and minimalistic (the sky).
On the lower side, complex light and shadow on forms and structures.
I think the photo will be improved to emphasize one or the other.
Thank you for sharing your picture for us to learn from.
But the picture is divided.
On the upper side, it's tranquil and minimalistic (the sky).
On the lower side, complex light and shadow on forms and structures.
I think the photo will be improved to emphasize one or the other.
Thank you for sharing your picture for us to learn from.
The Meaness
Well-known
I love the textures and contrast, I wouldn't change a thing.
zauhar
Veteran
That's an interesting photo, even if you think it has defects. My first reaction was "overexposed", but as someone pointed out it is not. I think the washed-out feeling comes from the sky being hazy (but nonetheless very bright). I think the sky is detracting from the photo a lot - as others pointed out, a different angle could focus on a selected element of the scene (and eliminate the milky sky).
At the risk of sounding like a poseur, I hate that sort of light. ;-)
Randy
At the risk of sounding like a poseur, I hate that sort of light. ;-)
Randy
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
Except for the sky that could have used more contrast (orange or red filter?) I find the technical quality excellent. Very sharp, precise exposure, beautiful contrast.
But I think you should better have either made a picture of that things in the water (pylons, I believe, is the English word) OR of the structure in the foreqround. Both in the same frame is... undecided, somehow.
Or, probably THIS picture would be better if you'd chosen a slightly higher point of view: less sky, more water between the 'pylons' and the coastline in the far background and between the foreground and the 'pylons'.
These are just my suggestions, since you asked. It's a technically very good and interesting image as it is. Keep shooting, and have fun.
But I think you should better have either made a picture of that things in the water (pylons, I believe, is the English word) OR of the structure in the foreqround. Both in the same frame is... undecided, somehow.
Or, probably THIS picture would be better if you'd chosen a slightly higher point of view: less sky, more water between the 'pylons' and the coastline in the far background and between the foreground and the 'pylons'.
These are just my suggestions, since you asked. It's a technically very good and interesting image as it is. Keep shooting, and have fun.
Chinasaur
Well-known
Whoa! Ya'll are great! Thanks for taking the time to offer suggestions. I've learned a whole lot reading your comments. Like a mini course of good stuff!
Very much appreciated!
BTW, here is what this looks like from another angle..not as good
And here is what it WAS prior to being a ruin.
Very much appreciated!
BTW, here is what this looks like from another angle..not as good
And here is what it WAS prior to being a ruin.
Last edited: