|
hrtmnstrfr
Sep 4, 2007, 3:50 PM
Post #1 of 18
(3610 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2006
Posts: 71
|
How does everyone like this photo? Any constructive criticism is appreciated. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
uptick
Sep 4, 2007, 7:45 PM
Post #2 of 18
(3596 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Posts: 78
|
I like it.
Little dark at the bottom but that's probably because it is...Gorge is good for that.
With the light, sure does immediately direct the eye to the climber.
How are the bugs down there?!? Haven’t been down for a couple months. Last year during the heat wave, the flies were so bad - chewed me to bits! Nothing like 95 degrees covered in sweat, sand and bugs.
Getting ready to be making some regular trips here in the fall.
|
|
|
|
|
hrtmnstrfr
Sep 4, 2007, 7:50 PM
Post #3 of 18
(3594 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2006
Posts: 71
|
Thanks. The weather was not too bad. High 80's and the bug were not as bad as they could have been. All together a pretty good trip.
|
|
|
|
|
singe
Sep 4, 2007, 10:58 PM
Post #4 of 18
(3584 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2004
Posts: 22
|
this is nice. is that blur at the bottom PSed? i love the light. climber is dead-center, but it works pretty well.
it's funny. i was just going through 10-year-old photos last night with a friend and came across a bunch from this route.
good stuff.
kyler
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Sep 5, 2007, 12:40 AM
Post #5 of 18
(3574 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
singe wrote: this is nice. is that blur at the bottom PSed? i love the light. climber is dead-center, but it works pretty well. it's funny. i was just going through 10-year-old photos last night with a friend and came across a bunch from this route. good stuff. kyler
Yeah, I noticed that too. Looks wrong, and my eyes keep coming back to it. Otherwise, I think it's a beautiful pic.
|
|
|
|
|
hrtmnstrfr
Sep 5, 2007, 1:58 PM
Post #6 of 18
(3557 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2006
Posts: 71
|
Yeah the blur is PSed. I saw it work well on someone else's photo and thought I would try it. Overall I liked the effect (my intention was detract the eye from that area). Thanks for the comments.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Sep 5, 2007, 2:01 PM
Post #7 of 18
(3556 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
hrtmnstrfr wrote: Overall I liked the effect (my intention was detract the eye from that area)
But my eye keeps going there, and I keep thinking, why is there an unnatural blur, is it the lens, is his lens fogged, is it intentional, why.... It is too dark, and the blur is not natural, and imho, it ruins a perfectly nice picture.
|
|
|
|
|
uptick
Sep 5, 2007, 4:03 PM
Post #8 of 18
(3548 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Posts: 78
|
Lensbabies...
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Sep 7, 2007, 10:17 PM
Post #11 of 18
(3500 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
upload your original photo... I'd like to see melekzek's handy work on this one to achieve your desired result.
That guy is Gandalf on the post-processing!
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Sep 8, 2007, 4:12 AM
Post #12 of 18
(3494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
kriso9tails wrote: I thought the attempt was going more towards DOF blur (which is easier to fake than lensbaby blur IMO).
The problem is that the climber and belayer are roughly the same distance from the photographer. So, bluring the belayer feels unnatural. You need a clear background and/or foreground to pull the dof stunt.
thanks stymingersfink , but I would prefer being the smeagol, lol
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Sep 8, 2007, 4:27 AM
Post #13 of 18
(3492 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
consensus then would seem to indicate opening up the aperture a bit next time. Most cameras have a DOF preview if you're unable to visualize the boundaries, though bracketing some test shots before the talent starts climbing might be as effective.
I always have trouble seeing things clearly on that little tiny screen though...
tends to work better in the minds eye.
|
|
|
|
|
hrtmnstrfr
Sep 10, 2007, 1:34 PM
Post #14 of 18
(3465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2006
Posts: 71
|
I believe I shot this with the lens wide open, it was taken at 16mm (I think) with a EF 10-22mm, so there isn't much background blur I could achieve with the lens itself...I'll upload the original later on when I am at home.
|
|
|
|
|
deepplaymedia
Sep 11, 2007, 11:34 AM
Post #15 of 18
(3446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 192
|
i prefer the landscape framing you put up on flickr, but with this climber positioning...
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Sep 12, 2007, 3:02 AM
Post #16 of 18
(3429 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
hrtmnstrfr wrote: I believe I shot this with the lens wide open, it was taken at 16mm (I think) with a EF 10-22mm, so there isn't much background blur I could achieve with the lens itself...I'll upload the original later on when I am at home.
focus the lens such that the subject matter is just within the field of focus.
problem with trying this technique in a clutch situation is, if you cut it too close the subject may be slightly soft as well, which would look nearly as bad
too, it would be nigh on impossible with the image you've shown here to get both fore and back ground blurr if your depth of field is as large as you say it is. you'd have to settle for one or the other, but probably not both.
some in-the-field creativity may be in order, such as careful smearing of just a touch of vaseline on a clear filter to achieve the blur in a desired area (i haven't played with this in a LOOONG time, so you'll have to figure that one out on your own). Back in the day, it was either in the field or in the darkroom... try not to rely too much on digital trickery after the fact.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Sep 12, 2007, 11:03 PM
Post #17 of 18
(3404 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
stymingersfink wrote: some in-the-field creativity may be in order, such as careful smearing of just a touch of vaseline on a clear filter to achieve the blur in a desired area (i haven't played with this in a LOOONG time, so you'll have to figure that one out on your own ). Back in the day, it was either in the field or in the darkroom... try not to rely too much on digital trickery after the fact.
I half agree and half strongly disagree (depending on how you meant it). There's nothing wrong with editting the hell out of your photos digitally. A lot of the most commonly used Photoshop features are taken from darkroom practices or at the verly least have their respective counterparts.
e.g. curves, colour balance, unsharp mask, masking in general, to a point HDR (in black and white neg and to some extent colour neg), dodging and burning, etc... Hell, these days they've even added in cross-processing.
Then there are many many features unique to Photoshop as well, and more are continually being developed, but even then they are generally created with traditional photographic practices in mind.
I agree with the statement, 'try not to rely too much on digital trickery to bail you out after you've buggered up,' but so long as you are deliberate with your process from capture to display, I don't see a problem. In that sense, nothing's really changed.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Sep 12, 2007, 11:27 PM
Post #18 of 18
(3401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
oh, you got it precisely right.
it IS amazing what one can do in post-processing these days without the chemical smell and mess. I, for one, love it (still haven't figured out even half of it yet!), but we're on the same page (i think) with having the proper image to start with.
everything after the image capture is part of the creative process, which isn't really finished until the print is matted and framed.
and sold!
|
|
|
|
|
|
