|
sonyhome
Sep 16, 2005, 9:11 AM
Post #2 of 5
(1662 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 5, 2005
Posts: 337
|
I don't like the framing though the angle might work...
Gut feel: Too many things cut in the frame: trees, legs, shoes. I feel claustrophobic... eh like you're putting blinds on me an aI'm not allowed to see the whole scene.
Cropping: If you crop below the climber's feet and aove his head, you got a perfect 1/3-rules shot, with spotters helping the viewer assess the height of the climb and still keep enough info on the trees to situate and give nice vertical motion to the photo... Muuuch better. Would actually score on the votes, and i'd rate it a 7 then.
With the show really close to the bottom, it'll accentuate visibility of the lens distortion making the shot more dramatic, with the hands afar. Cut te top 2 hand sizes above climber's hand (hand size refers to the climber's hand size)
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Sep 18, 2005, 7:37 PM
Post #3 of 5
(1662 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
I like shots like that, but I would suggest a higher vantage point, but keep that shot in mind if you happen to be shooting a high ball.
|
|
|
|
|
popol
Sep 20, 2005, 10:59 PM
Post #4 of 5
(1662 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2003
Posts: 390
|
General light is good, light on face of climber could be better.
Spotters are not too distracting for me, but their poses/action could be better (can't see the second spotter's face, e.g.)
just my 2 quick eurocents
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Sep 21, 2005, 12:18 AM
Post #5 of 5
(1662 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
light is excellent, although the spotters could use some more light, or wear something less dark. They blend into the background, which is a shame since their pose matches nicely with the background trees, and the talent. Maybe dof needs to be tighter? Also, I find the upper right trunk a bit distracting, i would prefer an open frame....
|
|
|
|
|
|
