Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Photo of the Day - March 2009

point 'n shoot - video capture...

Well, I'm back to playing around with my cheap little Panasonic Lumix LZ8, this time in video mode. I'm experimenting with grabbing single frames from the 848x480 pixel resolution. There are lots of limitations, but I'm curious to see what can be good for web use...

Anyway, it's my lab, Charlie. Some of you might remember him as the starving dog I found in Baja. Well, he loves the water up here in Oregon...:D

P1020185-2.jpg
 
Doylem said:
A pic's composition is right when it looks right. There are no hard-and-fast rules (though when it does look right, 9 times out of 10 it will conform to the so-called 'rule of thirds').

We learn the rules so that we'll be able to 'break' them by design... not just accident. There has to be a point. With people or animals, we naturally follow where they are looking, or moving towards, so we leave a little 'psychological space' in front of them.

The branches in this shot create a frame for the eagle. Personally, I like the bird being in the centre... maybe 'cos I'm accustomed to seeing the bald eagle as a symbol of the good 'ol US of A... and in its symbolic roles it's always dead centre. So it's both a handsome bird and a powerful symbol (actually, it's so powerful that it's hard to see the bird without all that symbolism and mythology... a visual metaphor for America's perceived role in the world).

All this rambling is just to say that the pic looks very fine to me... and that composition is a personal thing.

I honestly don't think about composition when I'm shooting pix. But then, when I'm 'in the zone', I'm not thinking about much at all. I'm on 'auto-pilot', just reacting to what's going on around me. In these terms, composition is a 'feeling', not a set of rules...

Just my two-pennorth... :)
Click to expand...

Thank you, Sir. That is high praise indeed from the Master of Light and Landscape. :) After reading the above posts, I tried cropping it with the eagle more to the viewer's right, but it somehow doesn't look as good to me. Perhaps you have put into words the reason why. Certainly the framing by the tree trunk has something to do with it, and the subconscious is often more aware of symbolism than the frontal lobe.

Cheers.
 
Another Flower Shot

Lol, I wonder what's up with me and flowers. Anyway here is mine for today



Comments and criticism appreciated :cool:
 
I'm sitting Large Format class and we are shooting Macro with a 120mm lens tell me what you think, it was sooo fun to shoot! I added the font for fun....

remote.jpg

Click for big!
 
Doylem said:
A pic's composition is right when it looks right. There are no hard-and-fast rules (though when it does look right, 9 times out of 10 it will conform to the so-called 'rule of thirds').

We learn the rules so that we'll be able to 'break' them by design... not just accident. There has to be a point. With people or animals, we naturally follow where they are looking, or moving towards, so we leave a little 'psychological space' in front of them.

The branches in this shot create a frame for the eagle. Personally, I like the bird being in the centre... maybe 'cos I'm accustomed to seeing the bald eagle as a symbol of the good 'ol US of A... and in its symbolic roles it's always dead centre. So it's both a handsome bird and a powerful symbol (actually, it's so powerful that it's hard to see the bird without all that symbolism and mythology... a visual metaphor for America's perceived role in the world).

All this rambling is just to say that the pic looks very fine to me... and that composition is a personal thing.

I honestly don't think about composition when I'm shooting pix. But then, when I'm 'in the zone', I'm not thinking about much at all. I'm on 'auto-pilot', just reacting to what's going on around me. In these terms, composition is a 'feeling', not a set of rules...

Just my two-pennorth... :)
Click to expand...

I certainly don't immediately subject the images I see to a mental list of rules, and I didn't mention any rule at all when I first commented on the eagle photo. To me, it just didn't look right. I saw a magnificent bird with its head turned sharply to one side, as if calling out to something in that direction. My response was to want to "move" with the bird, and my eyes want to stay in the left part of the frame, where the energy is. When I trail off to the right, I see that sprig of pine needles on the lower branch, and lots of room for my eye to roam above it. I then start noticing details of the branch above. Somehow the bird seems as much of a divider as a subject, and that's where I think a crop might improve it. Although I can appreciate the desire to make a bald eagle more emblem-like by giving it a central position in the frame, I don't see a symbol as strongly as other people might. I see a dynamic creature first, rather than a symbol of America; therefore, my instinct is to let it be a dynamic creature, one with an individual personality who is letting himself be heard.

Doylem, I find it interesting that you don't think of composition when taking your photos, since so often your subject, be it a sheep or a boat, falls very near to an intersection of the thirds--with room leftover for the minor cropping that occurs with a full-page bleed in printing. Of course one can ultimately internalize these rules and requirements to where they become second nature, but surely they still must enter consciously into your decisions on occasion. No?

As for the value of rules: I'll admit that rules come to mind for me very often when I'm composing a shot, but the rational process usually only kicks in after I've had my initial response to whatever visual stimulus caught my eye. Sometimes my right brain then overrules, and I go with my gut. Other times, a compositional rule encourages me to walk around for a different angle, one I might not have pursued otherwise. And sometimes I apply the rules in post-processing by cropping a photo that needs some compositional tweaking. So I would be hesitant to recommend that anyone habitually dismiss those rational thoughts while "in the moment" or while reviewing what the moment produced. I dislike the idea that art isn't art unless it comes from some effortless space of "genius." (That notion has its roots in the aristocratic circles of the ancient world, where labor was equated with servitude and inferiority.) I think that good photos are ultimately hard-won. (I only wish I could win them more often myself!)
 
Re-do

Oops, I didn't mean to open a can of worms :( I do appreciate all of the comments, both positive and otherwise. No one is ever too good to learn more, least of all me! With risk of further fueling the fire, here is another version of the eagle picture with a different crop and a fix to the white balance I missed the first time. Hopefully this will be less controversial...

p207688512-4.jpg



C&C always welcome.
 
spitfirejd said:
Oops, I didn't mean to open a can of worms :( I do appreciate all of the comments, both positive and otherwise. No one is ever too good to learn more, least of all me! With risk of further fueling the fire, here is another version of the eagle picture with a different crop and a fix to the white balance I missed the first time. Hopefully this will be less controversial...

p207688512-4.jpg



C&C always welcome.
Click to expand...

Eh, it's no can of worms, just a bunch of us forum junkies rambling on in response to a great photo. :)

In my view, this crop is absolutely perfect. It really ratchets up the energy of the image. It brings us closer to the eagle and makes his cry seem more directed and intense. I can almost hear it!
 
Phrasikleia said:
Eh, it's no can of worms, just a bunch of us forum junkies rambling on in response to a great photo. :)

In my view, this crop is absolutely perfect. It really ratchets up the energy of the image. It brings us closer to the eagle and makes his cry seem more directed and intense. I can almost hear it!
Click to expand...

I have to agree - I much prefer this crop
 
SansCrainte said:
I like it but the straight line that sperates focus and out of focus through the tree on the left kinda draws my eye. See if you can mask the tree and remove the blur effect from it.
Click to expand...

i will fix that tomorrow; tilt shift is fun

another pic from the library. it is really hard to study when you look out of a window and see this

3343788339_662bf22f97_b.jpg
 
Phrasikleia said:
I certainly don't immediately subject the images I see to a mental list of rules, and I didn't mention any rule at all when I first commented on the eagle photo. To me, it just didn't look right. I saw a magnificent bird with its head turned sharply to one side, as if calling out to something in that direction. My response was to want to "move" with the bird, and my eyes want to stay in the left part of the frame, where the energy is. When I trail off to the right, I see that sprig of pine needles on the lower branch, and lots of room for my eye to roam above it. I then start noticing details of the branch above. Somehow the bird seems as much of a divider as a subject, and that's where I think a crop might improve it. Although I can appreciate the desire to make a bald eagle more emblem-like by giving it a central position in the frame, I don't see a symbol as strongly as other people might. I see a dynamic creature first, rather than a symbol of America; therefore, my instinct is to let it be a dynamic creature, one with an individual personality who is letting himself be heard.

Doylem, I find it interesting that you don't think of composition when taking your photos, since so often your subject, be it a sheep or a boat, falls very near to an intersection of the thirds--with room leftover for the minor cropping that occurs with a full-page bleed in printing. Of course one can ultimately internalize these rules and requirements to where they become second nature, but surely they still must enter consciously into your decisions on occasion. No?

As for the value of rules: I'll admit that rules come to mind for me very often when I'm composing a shot, but the rational process usually only kicks in after I've had my initial response to whatever visual stimulus caught my eye. Sometimes my right brain then overrules, and I go with my gut. Other times, a compositional rule encourages me to walk around for a different angle, one I might not have pursued otherwise. And sometimes I apply the rules in post-processing by cropping a photo that needs some compositional tweaking. So I would be hesitant to recommend that anyone habitually dismiss those rational thoughts while "in the moment" or while reviewing what the moment produced. I dislike the idea that art isn't art unless it comes from some effortless space of "genius." (That notion has its roots in the aristocratic circles of the ancient world, where labor was equated with servitude and inferiority.) I think that good photos are ultimately hard-won. (I only wish I could win them more often myself!)
Click to expand...

Composition: a fascinating subject. I've studied some of the artists of the Italian Renaissance, who 'constructed' their pictures on mathematical principles ('golden section', etc). It was all very new to them, and some artists seemed more interested in the mathematics than the painting!

'Good' composition is a personal thing, yet there's probably a consensus about what constitutes a 'satsfying' arangement of elements within a picture... just as most of us can recognise harmony in music, and differentiate it from dissonance. Dissonance is fine... in small doses. Eccentric composition is fine too... in small doses. We quickly get weary of atonal noodlings (some modern jazz, for example :confused:) and wilfully oddball photographs.

When I'm out in the landscape, I let my subconscious mind take over. I don't think about composition, or camera functions, or anything much at all. This allows me to be 'present', in the 'here and now', simply enjoying what happens next. Photography becomes effortless, an extension of seeing. Composition takes care of itself. Yes, i know, it sounds like hippy-dippy nonsense, but it works for me. :)

When I'm 'in the zone', I take pictures. When I'm not, it's hard work. And I know which state of mind produces the better pix.

So, for me, composition is retrospective, something I notice when i'm reviewing pix on the computer screen.

The 'rule of thirds' is a useful starting point... but it's a blunt instrument. It's fun to play with accepted notions of composition... like having the subject at the edge of a pic, or dead centre. Or having someone who appears to be looking out of the picture space, rather than in. Etc...

There's plenty of material 'out there' about the emotional impact of picture composition: well worth a read. :)
 
McDonalds adds HDR Meal?



shot in Las Vegas. If you click the photo it will take you to my blog post and it includes a 100% crop of the sign. Pretty interesting for a handheld 5 photo hdr image on my d300.
 


Well I got some shiny coins around and decided to take photo of them

Tell me what you all think bout it :D
 
Doylem said:
Composition: a fascinating subject. I've studied some of the artists of the Italian Renaissance, who 'constructed' their pictures on mathematical principles ('golden section', etc). It was all very new to them, and some artists seemed more interested in the mathematics than the painting!

'Good' composition is a personal thing, yet there's probably a consensus about what constitutes a 'satsfying' arangement of elements within a picture... just as most of us can recognise harmony in music, and differentiate it from dissonance. Dissonance is fine... in small doses. Eccentric composition is fine too... in small doses. We quickly get weary of atonal noodlings (some modern jazz, for example :confused:) and wilfully oddball photographs.

When I'm out in the landscape, I let my subconscious mind take over. I don't think about composition, or camera functions, or anything much at all. This allows me to be 'present', in the 'here and now', simply enjoying what happens next. Photography becomes effortless, an extension of seeing. Composition takes care of itself. Yes, i know, it sounds like hippy-dippy nonsense, but it works for me. :)

When I'm 'in the zone', I take pictures. When I'm not, it's hard work. And I know which state of mind produces the better pix.

So, for me, composition is retrospective, something I notice when i'm reviewing pix on the computer screen.

The 'rule of thirds' is a useful starting point... but it's a blunt instrument. It's fun to play with accepted notions of composition... like having the subject at the edge of a pic, or dead centre. Or having someone who appears to be looking out of the picture space, rather than in. Etc...

There's plenty of material 'out there' about the emotional impact of picture composition: well worth a read. :)
Click to expand...

Renaissance artists particularly worked through the math when they discovered linear perspective, but much of what is written about their adherence to the Golden Section is over-analyzing on the part of modern critics. It's been shown that the Golden Section is divisible to such an extent that it can be mapped onto nearly anything. There's a fascinating collection of drawings in this vein in a book called "The Power of Limits," but it's mostly fanciful.

I don't think I've read anything about emotional composition, but I've read plenty about emotional response in the process of picture taking. The advice usually goes something like this: when something inspires you to take a photograph, acknowledge which emotion is registering, and then consider the "rules" to figure out how you might communicate that emotion as strongly as possible. I like the general outline of having an initial, subconscious response and then using a rational process to maximize the impact of the photograph. However, I find it difficult to reconcile "emotions" with composition", so I prefer to think of "energy" and "power" instead. How much energy or power does an image (or potential image) have? If it seems lacking, could a compositional rule help? That sort of thing. I most certainly do not advocate that rules should be primary in the process or that all good photos follow them.

Of course as an art historian, I've spent much more time analyzing images than making them, so the rational process looms large in my head, even if it does follow a subconscious response. :eek:

So, OK, Doylem, if you say you don't benefit in the field from a rational thought every now and then, I suppose I'll have to believe you. I'm just very suspicious about the idea that anyone who has read up on the subject of compositional rules can ever claim to be innocent of them. :cool:

appie57 said:
Looks like an Renault 4 (with Croation license plates)! I used to drive one when I was a student and that's a very long time ago....:(

Always enjoy your Balkan pictures, Phrasikleia!
Click to expand...

Thanks. I don't know a thing about cars, so your guess is surely better than mine. I just thought this car had such wonderful, beachy charm, and the colors around it were great. But yes, those are Croatian plates. I took that photo on the Croatian riviera (Makarska).
 
This was a simple group shot, but my lens was fogged up, especially on the left side of the image. The camera had been in a very cold car, and it was warming up rapidly outside, thus the fogging... now if I could only get the lens to fog up on demand...;) I'm not sure I mind the blown highlights, since it adds a glow to the image which works much better in b/w than in color.

DSC_5677.JPG


Model: NIKON D50
ISO: 200
Exposure: 1/60 sec
Aperture: 5.0
Focal Length: 38mm
 
Sunrise

Sunrise last Wednesday morning,

Hand held 5-200mm 4-5.5 vr
f 7.1 1/800, ISO 100
 

Attachments

  • 20090310_0014 Sunrise.jpg
    20090310_0014 Sunrise.jpg
    258.1 KB · Views: 84
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back