|
|
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Oct 2, 2003, 9:21 PM
Post #2 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
When I first clicked on this photo I couldn`t connect with it and I did so want to be kind and constructive with my comments. I had to come back a few times to gain an understanding of what was going on in my mind.
First there is a certain coldness to the pic which is conveyed to my eye by the slightly washed out colour of the rock which in turn really is not the fault of the photographer but more due to the actual colour of the rock. This is reinforced by the wool head warmer and warm jumper that the boulderer is wearing.
As I hate the cold and indeed come from a warm climate this may be a psychological aversion that has nothing to do with the quality of the shot.
That out of the way I`d like to make another comment, I wouldn`t mind seeing the climber taking up more of the frame. In other words I`d like to be more engaged with what he is doing, this would make the photo more intimate.
This I think would work as bouldering to me is an intimate past time. It is you and the rock, no distractions with ropes and gear. When I`m on the rock bouldering or soloing it is all about focussing on the minutae of the next hold or the one I`m desperately trying to cling to.
A macro focus right down on his fingers and taking in his facial expression would be dynamite but then it would be a completely different photo wouldn`t it.
Maybe just cropping out some of the surrounding rock and ground but leaving where he is heading for could work. This should allow for the climbers features to be enlarged thus giving an impression of more detail and intimacy with what he is doing.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Oct 2, 2003, 11:12 PM
Post #3 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
To me, the rock is too boring to have that much of it in the picture. I'm looking at it now in the topic review box below where I type my reply, so most of the rock is cut off and biff fills up the whole picture, and it really does look a lot cooler. Check it out by resizing your window and see if you get what I'm seeing. :)
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Oct 3, 2003, 12:03 AM
Post #4 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
heh heh, it is a good idea to use the explorer window as interactive framing. I can see that it works a lot better with cropping from the bottom and left. The decrease in the right side makes the washed out part less distracting. I would leave all the left and upper frame, which places the climber down left in the image, which adds to the dynamic structure. His arms form a curve and reaching to right and my eye follows him to the right.
One more thing would be the hold he is holding, it is too large. That makes it an easy looking problem. The images where the climber holds on virtually nothing creates more connection to the climber-viewers, we can relate to the struggle he is in trying to hold on to the rock. Maybe an image where he is about to hold would have made better, we could see that if he can reach he would be able to relaex, which might have added some tension.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
justuspr
Oct 3, 2003, 2:40 AM
Post #6 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2003
Posts: 153
|
For some reason it looks like you lost focus on your face, but other than that I think the second shot is much better than the first. I might not have cropped quite so much out, but thats just me being picky... overall great photo!
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Oct 3, 2003, 2:47 AM
Post #7 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Much better for composition but sadly as has been pointed out the face has lost focus. Perhaps a sharpen up in photoshop could be in order.
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Oct 3, 2003, 5:06 AM
Post #8 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
yes .. I added gaussian blur to simulate depth of field (macro style) Which was suggested. My hand is about 2 feet farther forward than my head therefore less focused. I used a masked blured layer to make a gradient effect (notice the hand is still "in focus"). With the camera I had at the time, (canon A40) it is almost impossible to get the depth of field right on camera.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Oct 3, 2003, 4:59 PM
Post #9 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
I might say that the framing is too tight in the second one. I feel that it works better than the first one, but now you barely fit the frame. I would give a little more space around the frame, but some more on the right such that viewers eye have some space to follow the action direction....
The blur doesnt work for me, I liked the facial features, you are loosing them...
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Oct 3, 2003, 5:55 PM
Post #10 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
Biff:
1.) Like the 2nd composition better. The lighted area in the background is distracting. This hotspot takes attention away from the climber, and by cropping the photo as you did you have reduced the distraction.
2.) Try using the blur only on the portion behind the climber. I agree with these guys, the blur takes away from a great action shot. For me, having the eyes in focus is a BIG thing. IT helps your audience connect with the climber. The "Hand in Focus, everything else blurry" type of bouldering shot is becoming played out (IMHO), it does have a place, but more so if you can get REALLY close in on that hand. The subject of your shot is obviously the whole climber. Keep the face and frontal hand in focus and blur the rest. The face conveys great emotion (gets the viewer emotionally involved), you wouldn't want to limit that.
I read on www.photo.net (Digital Darkroom Forum) that you can make a mask with a gradiant and then use blur effect it will actually let you create a gradiant blur (i.e. - light by your climber, heavier toward the outside edge). Might be something to look into ;)
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Oct 3, 2003, 6:01 PM
Post #11 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
I did do the gradient effect, with the focus on the hand .. Perhaps this evining I will try and repeat the process using the face as the focus point, and changing the framing a little bit wider.
Thanks everyone for the comments.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Oct 3, 2003, 7:30 PM
Post #12 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: having the eyes in focus is a BIG thing.
Krillen has a really good point here, how many times have I read this...
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Oct 3, 2003, 8:34 PM
Post #14 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
my preference woudl be to keep the front hand to the head/face in focus.
|
|
|
|
|
arrigetch
Oct 6, 2003, 6:54 PM
Post #15 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2003
Posts: 10
|
I like the position of the first shot the best as there are two focal points, the climbers face, and the pocket (not the hand). I think that in the second set of photos from the other perspective, the pocket as a focal point becomes a bit obscured, but I'm not sure why. Maybe it's the reduction in size, or the loss of detail in the pocket.
I would go with the first photo posted and crop out the pad, and halfway between the pocket and the right edge. Otherwise I wouldn't change a thing as the face brings a lot of drama to the image.
|
|
|
|
|
padwarmer
Oct 7, 2003, 9:44 PM
Post #16 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2003
Posts: 27
|
I think The cropped version without any blurring is the best of the bunch, except for some reason it is not as sharp as the original. If you could recover the sharpness I think it would work better. With the new tighter cropping I don't think you want any blur, tack sharp will do the trick. I might also experiment with burning the bright ground in the lower left and dodging you a little to bring more of the focus to you. As it is my eye is pulled past you to the bright ground.
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Oct 9, 2003, 4:57 AM
Post #17 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
Thanks for all the comments .. Here is what I think is the best of my digital alterations.
I burned the white rock on the ground
Created a duplicate layer
Blurred the top layer (gaussian radius 7 on a 2MP image)
Added a mask to the top layer.
Masked off the climber and rock so that the sharp layer underneath showed.
Used a Gradient tool on the mask over the blue Sweatshirt, so that the blurred image would fade in, creating a depth of field effect rather than a blurred image effect.
Used a soften tool to get the edges of the mask a little less harsh.
I decided not to change the pocket size, I know it is big, but I also know it is damn hard to hit blind around the corner when you are locked off 90degrees on a sharp hold.
http://www.biffard.com/..._4578_edit_final.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
climbnow1
Oct 9, 2003, 4:26 PM
Post #18 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 20, 2002
Posts: 32
|
My thoughts on the original one: The bright background to the left is disturbing - it kind of cuts the image into 2 pieces.... The rock is quite boaring - get some contrast by wearing a yellow or red sweater and not blue... and the climber to much centred... IŽd love to see the hand just a little before sinking into that jug.
|
|
|
|
|
akornylak
Oct 30, 2003, 11:54 AM
Post #19 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 251
|
I like this shot potential, so if you dont mind Biff, Id like to try something. Here are some suggestions that I will illustrate with some Photoshop work:
First, there are some distractions, namely, the sunlit background and the crash pad. Try shooting on an overcast day or in more even light to isolate the subject better. Second, try a fill flash for the subject. Third, try brighter colors for the subject if possible. Finally, use a smaller depth of field by opening up that aperture. A shot like this begs for a sharp subject and blurred background.
Hard to work on a low-res jpeg version, but here are my suggestions visually: what do you think?
http://www.akornphoto.com/images/misc/biff.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Oct 30, 2003, 5:04 PM
Post #20 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
I like the way you burned the background so much.. it makes it look like there is snow on the ground. The brightening of the head band is good also. Changing the colour of the shirt looks like it would improve the picture, but i think changnig it Digitally would be alot of work to make it look real.
The shot was taken at max appature on my little digital camera (prbably 8mm F2.8 ) so there was nothing I could do with that manually.
I took this shot because I liked this one so much .. I was hoping to fix the motion blur (wich I worked really hard to get rid of digitally on this one) some might say the motion blur looks cool, but before I resized and sharpened, I think it looked prety bad.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=10290
Next time I go thereI will bring a brighter shirt, my tripod and digitalSLR, and see what results I can get.
|
|
|
|
|
jut
Oct 30, 2003, 11:19 PM
Post #21 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2003
Posts: 59
|
I wish I knew how to do that crap.
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Nov 4, 2003, 4:45 PM
Post #22 of 22
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
I think I like the 2nd photo better. More raw emotion, and you aren't wearing that headband...that thign bugs me...sorry...
I liek it because I can feel for the climber, I know what it's like to miss those huge jugs. It gets the viewer emotionally involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
