|
philbox
Moderator
Oct 13, 2003, 5:36 AM
Post #1 of 14
(2179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=15434
Lee Skidmore resting on the jug at the top of his just sent grit project at Redcliffs in the Helidon Hills, South East Queensland, Oz.
Go to it lads and lasses, give me a flogging.
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Oct 13, 2003, 8:10 PM
Post #2 of 14
(2179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
it is cool how his chalkbag looks like it is on fire. neat effect.
One things is that the shot might be a little overexposed, a quicker shutter speed might have sharpened the hand movement a bit, but it might have cut down on the chalk effect aswell.
It might be nice if the climber were looking up, so we could see the look of satisfaction, or pain, on his face.
The last peice of gear would be nice to have in the composition aswell, to get an idea of the protection on the route. But the downside is that the focus on the climber/chalk could be lost.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Oct 13, 2003, 9:14 PM
Post #3 of 14
(2179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
The last piece of gear was well down and far out of sight as this is a grit route meaning that gear is quite sparse at best. In about ten metres there is one piece of gear, fortunately below that for another ten metres there is heaps of bomber gear.
The over exposed could be a function of the backlit nature of the shot. I kinda don`t mind the hand movement as everyone who climbs would take it as the climber shaking out after dipping in for a chalkup. I too would have liked more of his face in the shot.
|
|
|
|
|
jut
Oct 13, 2003, 11:10 PM
Post #4 of 14
(2179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2003
Posts: 59
|
I have no business offering a critique, so take it for what it is - but my take on being able to see someone's face is this:
If the photo is more of a person and landscape scenery shot with action, no worries about not seeing the face. However, if the photo is a close up of someone (I would call your shot a close up - close up for a climbing shot) and they are the center of attention, then you need to get the face. But, and like someone said to me in another forum when I was asking a newbie question, rules are made to be broken - my photos clearly don't always adhere to this thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Oct 14, 2003, 12:48 AM
Post #5 of 14
(2179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
So jut would you call this pic a close up.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Oct 15, 2003, 3:43 AM
Post #6 of 14
(2179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
I'd second the need to see the face. It always makes pics better. Can't think of anything else though...
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Oct 15, 2003, 11:03 PM
Post #7 of 14
(2179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
I would agree w/ biff that it might be a little overexposed. The backlighting on the chalk seperates the climber from the background, it is really excellent. The face is a problem as other people has already mentioned. I would use a little larger frame, it is somewhat too tight, if you show some more space from the bottom part, it will relax the tightness. You can include the last piece, but I think showing the rope dangling down into nothing -rebuffant style- will look really cool....
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Oct 17, 2003, 9:11 PM
Post #8 of 14
(2179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
The chalk cloud effect is interesting, but it's too much (and backlit). It looks like he burned his hand and is shaking it cool. Sorry man, that's my 1st impression.
Good use of colour, nice helmet.
The eyes, I agree, it'd be nice to see them, you've hinted at them in this pic, which makes it worse then not seeing them at all.
If you had been higher up, could you have show the distance between gear easier? Just a thought.
Off topic -could he put a piece where his foot is? ;)
Good focusing Phil (I'm obsessed...I know ;) )
|
|
|
|
|
akornylak
Oct 22, 2003, 9:45 PM
Post #10 of 14
(2179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 251
|
Hi. I dont think this image is overexposed.
Second, the light looks a bit unnatural. was this taken with a flash? any post-process?
A
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Oct 23, 2003, 2:05 AM
Post #11 of 14
(2179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=19257
Her is the original pic sans post processing except for resizing. I don`t usually use a flash and I certainly did not use a flash for this pic, not that there is anything wrong with using a flash. I may have adjusted the colour of the pic and reduced the contrast to mitigate the effect of the backlighting. Good pick up.
|
|
|
|
|
martenb
Nov 11, 2003, 1:03 AM
Post #12 of 14
(2179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 71
|
As a picture of chalk whizzing up from the climbers hands, it needs the background to be out of focus, focusing on the subject, and be shot on a wider lens, showing the great height at which the climber is precariously placed. These shots are incredibly hard to do.
|
|
|
|
|
cryder
Nov 11, 2003, 11:00 PM
Post #13 of 14
(2179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2003
Posts: 391
|
The previous mention of hieght being a factor is dead on. Height, and conveying it, is what lends climbing a distinct intensity. This one feels a bit flat in terms of depth, but it is intimate... so they balance out. I think a few post prod filters would dress up the color nicely... maybe a gradient map or two and actually lowering the current saturation, or at least the addressing the red levels. I think the dust takes nice advantage of an otherwise tough lighting situation.
|
|
|
|
|
extra_finger_hold
Nov 12, 2003, 9:55 PM
Post #14 of 14
(2179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 19
|
Nice shot as far as composition...although the lighting is a bit plain...it looks like evaluative metering...It might be interesting to take a spot reading off the trees in the bkg...the climber would be shilouetted a bit, and the chalk and the white helmet catching the highlights would pop out and the red shirt would be a bit more saturated... you could still do it under levels in photoshop... peace
|
|
|
|
|
|
