It's a good thing you told us what we are looking at because I would never have puzzled it out in spite of having some experience in making observable objects accessible to blind visitors. Without that knowledge, it appears that a version of the painting has set about to extricate herself from a copy of the artwork so that she can move more freely about the museum. Nicely framed and caught.
July 12, 2023
178
-
-
Nice image. Sweet William, maybe? I'm not a flower expert by any means. They are pretty things with all their most important parts in good focus and clear color in that dappled light. I find that the 12-40 does a quite creditable job on closeups, and I find it easier to handle than the somewhat quirky 60 macro.
Glad to have you join us!
-
I don't think it needs a bright blue sky, which takes too much away from the characters and just isn't what we usually have. I think just a tad of detail in the all-too-familiar off white flat sky we in the US southeast are often blessed with in summer. Give me a few minutes and I'll experiment a bit.
-
Since I prefer most of my buildings straight up, I'm very grateful for the Adobe tools that let me fix such leans and distortions to my liking. Great CA coast colors, what a shame that someone has thought uniform gray would be an improvement. The fellow upstairs and the soft drink machine downstairs make this image more than an architectural presentation about geometry, though those elements are still abundant. The strong shadows give it a bit of 3D impression, too. Nice.
-
How absolutely wonderful! But it isn't just the cuteness, it is an awesome family environmental portrait with beautiful golden light well angled to reveal the faces of the two who are turned our way. They are posed quite perfectly in the patchy opening in the grasses. They are framed nicely by a perfectly shaped tree on the right and the taller grasses on the left. And their backdrop is suitably darker with diminished detail. If they had come to you and hired you to make a memorable portrait, and you'd carefully chosen all the variables, it could not have been better. Well done.
-
I figured it was a harbor scene when I saw it, partly because of the alignment of the "blobs" and their reflections, and partly because having followed your images for years, I know you are drawn to document the sights of the harbor in all kinds of ways. I don't think I've ever seen you present one that is comprised only of lights though. It has its own minimalistic beauty, with the blobs themselves as art pieces in their own right - some clearly defined, others blurred, some overlapping and others not, some discrete, others elongated. A work of abstract art in rich color on a black canvas.
-
I am not sure where this post from me will appear in relation to the General Reviews addition begun, I think by Why Not. I am going to post this twice, once as a Reply then once after a Quote ar rge bottom of Why Nots General Review post. Wish me luck. I hope this doesn't further muddle things too much.
There is much that follows that I'd like to add to but the flat view of the forum makes following the discussions a nightmare.
so, some general additions to Why Not's post, then I'll see how it fits together.
Bricks. I have lots more photos of bricks in Italy. The series I began this week will be continued, although I will space them out.Brushwork and eyes. When visiting art galleries, especially to see famous paintings, I see no point in taking yet another photo of the much seen image. I'll try for interaction of other viewers with the masterwork, or I try to do closeups of the brushwork, especially around the eyes. This has become difficult as galleries, understandably, put protective glass over famous paintings and keep you well back. If I find I'm in a gallery where the painting doesn't have glass over the painting, I always discuss what I want to do with the attendant before getting up close. Usually they are then happy for me to do it. A special note of appreciation to the Courthauld Gallery in London.
Re photographing eyes. Bill Brandt, one of my absolute favourite phtotgraphers, did a series on the eyes of noted painters. I really liked his Picasso.Re Ansel Adams, the zone system and previsualization. framing. when is a photo no longer a photo? Lots and lots here I'd like to discuss. In my B&W days I was an Ansell Adams and zone system convert. In general, while the tech has changed, I still go along with Adam's take on photography, the role of the photographer and print quality. There's too much here to scratch this surface at the moment.
Why Not. Your General reviews is a noble attempt to confront the problems of flat view forums but it makes responding to your points difficult as well.
-
I am not sure where this post from me will appear in relation to the General Reviews addition begun, I think by Why Not. I am going to post this twice, once as a Reply then once after a Quote ar rge bottom of Why Nots General Review post. Wish me luck. I hope this doesn't further muddle things too much.
There is much that follows that I'd like to add to but the flat view of the forum makes following the discussions a nightmare.
so, some general additions to Why Not's post, then I'll see how it fits together.
Bricks. I have lots more photos of bricks in Italy. The series I began this week will be continued, although I will space them out.Brushwork and eyes. When visiting art galleries, especially to see famous paintings, I see no point in taking yet another photo of the much seen image. I'll try for interaction of other viewers with the masterwork, or I try to do closeups of the brushwork, especially around the eyes. This has become difficult as galleries, understandably, put protective glass over famous paintings and keep you well back. If I find I'm in a gallery where the painting doesn't have glass over the painting, I always discuss what I want to do with the attendant before getting up close. Usually they are then happy for me to do it. A special note of appreciation to the Courthauld Gallery in London.
Re photographing eyes. Bill Brandt, one of my absolute favourite phtotgraphers, did a series on the eyes of noted painters. I really liked his Picasso.Re Ansel Adams, the zone system and previsualization. framing. when is a photo no longer a photo? Lots and lots here I'd like to discuss. In my B&W days I was an Ansell Adams and zone system convert. In general, while the tech has changed, I still go along with Adam's take on photography, the role of the photographer and print quality. There's too much here to scratch this surface at the moment.
Why Not. Your General reviews is a noble attempt to confront the problems of flat view forums but it makes responding to your points difficult as well.
-
Sorry about that .... I wasn't trying to make any point with that blue sky ... just showing that replacing that sky could be done with this quick and with this very blue sky .... But to do it right I thought I needed to find a replacement sky from the files ( I don't collect skies!!) and I didn't want to spend the time to do that with this picture... I know that these details and noise and artifacts are a problem for some viewers, but for me they are not all that important if they don't draw me away from the composition and story ... and here I didn't think the sky would... as I said .. sorry about that ....
WhyNot
-
Maybe not really so noble!!!!
Well .... ..... My problem with this flat view is that following any discussion here is difficult for me ... With this combined response to others critique I tried to minimize the entries to reduce the pages needed to find it .. I hadn't expect anyone to respond to all the replies or combine the thoughts... My brick comment was simply comparing the idea of your focus on the bricks of these architectures to the studies of brush work from famous painters by examining their paintings ..... Never expected to combine the thoughts on bricks with those thoughts about the eyes in Simplejoy's picture!!! ..... And you seem to have picked up on my other and separate comment about JimKasson's essay ...... All of which tells me that this attempt to simplify my response is a failure and I'll respond separately in the future .... mostly ..... probably .... but thank you for this reply that will help me in the future ....
WhyNot
-
This is an exceptional article. It is exactly the kind of content this entire site needs, and also the kind of discussion I hope we can have more of in the context of discussing our images in this section, or in a separate thread. It motivated me to think anew about how I make the decisions I make about what I capture, and how I proceed after capture, and how I feel about all that stuff.
I do photography strictly for the fun of it. I have only an ancient history in film, so I relate best to digital capture. I have often referred to what I do as harvesting pixels. I go somewhere (even if just around the house or yard) with a camera and lens, seldom with planned intent, and come back with images that I edit either a little or a lot into something I thought of as I wandered and looked, or something that comes to mind while I'm reviewing them. I may cobble multiple images together or add other stuff or take it away. But the whole process is a mix of exploration and invention and just plain play. I have no remorse about pushing pixels about in any way I see fit. I have sometimes felt I ought to be more disciplined in my approach, or press myself to monetize, but that would defeat the whole purpose for me and it would become work.
-
Minniev, thanks.
I like your comment about the shadows, which I think are as important to the image as the colors. They create a lighting which is strongly associated with Southern California or LA imagery. This was late winter sun at 4pm (Feb 9, 2014). And as can happen in February in this place, it was 80 degrees at the beach.
Rich
-
Why not, I'll stick with my "noble" adjective. I'm having exactly the same problems as you and I welcome attempts to find a way to make the discussions easier to follow. I think that what we do here requires the to and fro of genuine discussion and that means more than commenting on a photo and moving on to the next. My fear is that the complexity of trying to develop an exchange of views here becomes too complex and too time consuming and everyone will run out of energy. I don't think what you tried has worked but it was certainly worth the try and it has certainly helped me in my thinking about this.
I'd like to hear the opinions of others contributing here about this. -
I agree completely about the value of Jim's article, both for its immediate contribution and also for the importance of pieces like this in establishing the credentials of DPRevived.
Re previsualization. Can I have it both ways? Being able to previsualize an outcome (especially for a print) I regard as necessary for a photographer. To have got your head around photography, you need to be confident that you can produce the image you see when you took the shot. Of course, this was more of a requirement in film days when usually you needed to get it right first time. But this isn't essential for every photo. There's plenty of room for experimentation without knowing the outcome as well. I do both.
There is also happenstance when something emerges from a photo that I hadn't seen when I took the shot. I have no qualms about accepting such gifts from the photographic gods, I rejoice.
Then there is framing. I rarely tightly frame a shot intending it to be framed exactly as seen through the viewfinder. If I have the shooting time, I'll give a margin for error in the framing. Often I know I will be cropping something I shoot later and I want some space to get it right when I look at it on a larger monitor. It is one of the reasons I prefer full frame, it gives me more later crop capability. Often I go back over old photos and find new possibilities though cropping and reframing. That's not previsualization. -
Thank you. Reposted in Open Talk.
-
Cute they are, especially with a joey in the pouch. Bryan has nicely caught a shot that shows the iconic kangaroo shape and lets us see the joey. The foreground grass and the lighting picking up the shapes against the trees all help.
In honesty, I feel obliged to add a sombre note. This looks like a spotlight or car headlights rather than a dawn. I'm glad that the kangaroos don't seem to be on a road. Kangaroo carnage on Australian roads at night is horrific. Headlights hypnotize them and they will hop right into oncoming vehicles. Roos feed at night and the best food is often on the verges of roads. Roel had a close up encounter with a large roo while he was in my car in Australia. Knowing we were in prime roo danger territory, we were driving slowly. Happily the kangaroo disappeared and probably was OK. Sadly my passenger side mirror wasn't. -
I don't agree that photogenic people are required for portraits, although this might depend on how we define "photogenic" and it is likely that I am misunderstanding you on this anyway.
We might also need to discuss the meaning of "portrait, " not that I think there is a watertight definition that we all have to agree about. It might be argued that a face where only the eyes are in focus isn't a portrait.
Back to your image.
Only the eyes are in sharp focus. They are also in an area of the shot that has stronger light and further, they engage directly with us. The engagement with us hints at the character of the person. Things get softer around the eyes and the impression is of friendliness. We get two other clues that support this. The hint of a smile can be made out on the out of focus mouth. There is a soft, careless quality to the hairstyle that tends the same way. OK, that's how I respond to those features. Another viewer from a different time and place might have a very different subjective response.
I'd feel OK about him dating my daughter. -
I had no idea. To me it looked like the emergency outlet in a grain silo. People can drown in the grain in those things.
I agree with (I think it was Open Cube) that a magician doesn't have to reveal their tricks. Seeing what Linda began with in building this image gives me nearly as much awe as the image itself however.