|
padwarmer
Oct 5, 2003, 8:46 AM
Post #1 of 10
(1138 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2003
Posts: 27
|
A version of this photo was one of the first I uploaded on rc.com It was rated poorly and never generated any comments. I kind of like it. I would like to know why other people don't. It is hard to be objective when you have memories that go with a photo. This version has some simulated depth of field added that the original post did not have.
http://www.sonic.net/~danw/LisaJason2nd.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
padwarmer
Oct 6, 2003, 5:31 AM
Post #2 of 10
(1138 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2003
Posts: 27
|
Yes the original post had a lot of compression artifacts. I adjusted the quality as high as I could without going over 96k but it still looked kind of crappy. For this version I made it a little smaller, and the blurred background and foreground both make for a smaller file, or higher quality in this case. I like the shallow DOF in the new image but my wife likes the original sharp background better.
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Oct 6, 2003, 2:13 PM
Post #3 of 10
(1138 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
I would say the pixelation is really the bigest thing with your first photo.
If you make the image dimensions smaller, it really reduces the size.
This photo is about 98k and 540 in width. The other photo is 94k and 600 width. I downloaded the new image and reszied it to 500x593 and cpmressed it to around 57k (compression level 27). And it looked prety much identical to the one you posted.
I agree, you did a good job witht he blur effect, it looks natural. The grass directly behind the climber was espically distracting in the first photo.
Another thing that takes away from the asthetics of the photo is that the climber is almost on the ground. People tend to vote low on photos that have climbers close to the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
arrigetch
Oct 6, 2003, 6:40 PM
Post #4 of 10
(1138 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2003
Posts: 10
|
The new DOF makes it far more dramatic. There was something distracting about the red bush in the background before you added the blur. Very nice. Agree with the "low to ground" comment.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Oct 6, 2003, 6:50 PM
Post #5 of 10
(1138 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: Another thing that takes away from the asthetics of the photo is that the climber is almost on the ground.
This was also the first thing I had noticed. We cannot see her feet clearly, and it is really close to the ground, and the grass makes it worse by raising the ground a bit. By looking the image, it looks "posed", she looks like she is standing on the ground and just doing the first move or something. This is really killing her pose, I do not take her seriously. If I could see the crappy holds she is standing on, even a little space from the gorund will help to change the mood.
Her strain in the fingers and her determined look is excellent. And you did a great job with the depthoffield it really works. I like the backlight on her hair, very nice. It is almost "stage" environment, excellent.
About the framing I would shifted the frame a little to the right, decreasing the amount of rock from the left, and increasing the grassy stuff on the right leaving the eye some space....
Doesnt she kind of look like kim basinger ? lol
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Oct 7, 2003, 3:42 AM
Post #6 of 10
(1138 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
I agree that moving the frame to the right more would make it better. Other than that, I like it.
|
|
|
|
|
padwarmer
Oct 7, 2003, 8:18 PM
Post #7 of 10
(1138 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2003
Posts: 27
|
Thanks for the comments. I can't do anything about the low to the ground part at this point but I will try moving the frame to the right a little. I was afraid of the bullseye effect with the climbers head dead center.
I also hear what you are saying about the low to the ground bit. I have to laugh though because the feet are super polished and suck.
Maybe I should try to fix up http://www.rockclimbing.com/...n=Show&PhotoID=16121 She is higher off the ground + you can see her feet.
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Oct 17, 2003, 8:33 PM
Post #8 of 10
(1138 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
I prefer this pic (although I'm with everyone else on the "close to the ground thing) over the other one you linked. The other one has many distracting features.
I like the simplicity of this shot, it has a calming feeling to me. A nice relaxed day out bouldering simply for the joy of climbing.
nice work
|
|
|
|
|
orangeoverhang
Oct 23, 2003, 7:50 AM
Post #9 of 10
(1138 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 29, 2002
Posts: 71
|
Beautiful light and subject. This reminds me more a catalouge shot rather than an action climbing mag photo.
|
|
|
|
|
escale
Jan 14, 2004, 7:48 PM
Post #10 of 10
(1138 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 129
|
padwarmer:
I just recently joined this forum. This is a good shot. I agree with most the comments. Typically, I am unsure what your target objective is. As a portrait of your friend, this is great. The grandkids and family would be inspired and amazed. She is clearly a stunner ( variation of stunning ), so, this looks like it could be used as an ad for jeans or blouses in a fashion magazine. I really dig those fashion magazines photos where the model is wearing faux fu, heavy boots, glacier shades, roped in a climbing harness and carrying an ice axe with her perfectly polished nails that match her earrings and pretty lipstick she is putting, while standing on top of a some French glacier. The grass kept in focus on the ground does kind of distract so by soft focusing it, it might direct the viewer to the lady and the rock and lean towards a simpler photo. Yes, that red is also a distraction. Did you deliberately hide her shoes because they were tennis shoes, or was that an accident? Also, it appears that the boulder is only maybe 9 feet high because it looks like it is turning into a ledge. If it is indeed the maximum height, you did a good job of hiding it, but showing us the top isn’t bad. By showing us the top, we get to explore the “so close, yet almost too far away” concept.
The “close to the ground thing” does make the photo contrived. Looking near her belly it appears that there is some distant deep green foliage. I don’t know how the location is arranged, and unlike a studio, we can only work with what nature gives us. However, I would look at moving the camera position left to see if I could use that entire deep green to silhouette her in front of it. If she could have got her hands and a little higher up and the camera angle left and pointing up to crop the ground below, it would look closer to an action shot leaving to the imagination of the viewer to guess as to the height. This would allow us, using her expression, which appears focused and concerned, body language, gripped hands and feet to guess what uncertainties she is exactly fighting.
But then again, it might have been a short boulder, and there might be a traffic light next to the deep green foliage. Try to remember, portrait, humanity struggling against impossible odds, or magazine ads, they all have different objectives. But always keep visualizing.
---Escale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
