Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 30, 2005, 11:36 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

I have a twin. What I have is called amblyopia (lazy eye). Diagnosis was too late to help correct it.

I too have been told the same thing you shared. I appreciate that.

Mahalo,

Tom
vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 5:20 AM   #42
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

Everyone has been too quick to judge me and try to read some kind of attitude into my replies to Chris. He stated that my mat frame was a distraction. I was eager to learn what makes it distracting to him so I pushed for more details. That doesn't necessarily mean I did not agree with him though I stated why I didn't feel it was a distraction. The only solution he offered is that I do what he does which isn't what I want. If I do that, then I've picked up his style and no longer have my own. I still haven't gotten the answer I was seeking, but believe I've figured it out. I believe the mat/frame is too big and creates a big void or uninteresting space.

Here is the oritinal followed by the solution I come up with. You dedide.

Rodney

The original:


The Solution:
Attached Images
 
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 6:25 AM   #43
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Well I for one was not involved in that discussion. :roll:However now Im going to have my say:-)

My opinion is that they both look very nice. Im not sure that I fully like blurred water but that is just a preference of mine, I like to see a landscapes as the human eye would see it. It is very effective though. The first frame does not distract in anyway and I really cant see what all the talk was about. It looks like a framed print. If I was to buy such a print it would be framed in a similar style although Im not sure if I'd go so dark. The second photos edging is OK but it does not do a lot for the photo. I really don't understand what all the fuss is about with frames, sure if the frame had roses or stars and stripes all around it I could see the point but a plain colored frame that enhances (by way of color) a photo is fine as far as I can see.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 6:28 AM   #44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 209
Default

Hey Rodney,

I'm still interested in the location and the water. If you would be so kind. Had it just rained? I'm trying to learn something. I'm trying to see how allthis stuffworks.
Plain Jane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 7:48 AM   #45
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

Plain Jane wrote:
Quote:
Hey Rodney,

I'm still interested in the location and the water. If you would be so kind. Had it just rained? I'm trying to learn something. I'm trying to see how all this stuff works.
I sent you a PM...
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 10:40 AM   #46
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

aladyforty wrote:
Quote:
Well I for one was not involved in that discussion. :roll: However now Im going to have my say:-)

My opinion is that they both look very nice. Im not sure that I fully like blurred water but that is just a preference of mine, I like to see a landscapes as the human eye would see it. It is very effective though. The first frame does not distract in anyway and I really cant see what all the talk was about. It looks like a framed print. If I was to buy such a print it would be framed in a similar style although Im not sure if I'd go so dark. The second photos edging is OK but it does not do a lot for the photo. I really don't understand what all the fuss is about with frames, sure if the frame had roses or stars and stripes all around it I could see the point but a plain colored frame that enhances (by way of color) a photo is fine as far as I can see.
LOL...Thanks Alady. The stars and stripes comment made me laugh.

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 11:38 AM   #47
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Call me crazy, but I actually prefer the bigger one over the new one. The little one just seems incomplete to me. Sorry i'm not really helping..
  Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 12:46 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

Chris Kayler wrote:
Quote:
Call me crazy, but I actually prefer the bigger one over the new one. The little one just seems incomplete to me. Sorry i'm not really helping..
LOL...You are crasie! Not a real biggie though. I'm just going to give up on it. :-)

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 1:06 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,232
Default

This has been a really interesting discussion on how our pictures present to others, and what can make or break a picture in the eye of someone else. I tend to keep mats and borders fairly neutral and rely on contrast or complement, but that is just my way of doing things.

I have noticed that putting an otherwise unremarkable picture in a frame will get people to look at it differently than if it is just a print in a portfolio. Try it on your friends to see what they think. It might make you go 'Hmmm' .

The new picture posts are, to me an improvement, looking a lot cleaner in the details. My personal preference for shooting falling water is to try to keep shutter speed somewhere between 1/15 and 1/60. This is slow enough to soften without getting the heavily blurred look that some seem to prefer. Again, a matter of personal taste.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2005, 1:13 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

VTphotog wrote:
Quote:
This has been a really interesting discussion on how our pictures present to others, and what can make or break a picture in the eye of someone else. I tend to keep mats and borders fairly neutral and rely on contrast or complement, but that is just my way of doing things.

I have noticed that putting an otherwise unremarkable picture in a frame will get people to look at it differently than if it is just a print in a portfolio. Try it on your friends to see what they think. It might make you go 'Hmmm' .

The new picture posts are, to me an improvement, looking a lot cleaner in the details. My personal preference for shooting falling water is to try to keep shutter speed somewhere between 1/15 and 1/60. This is slow enough to soften without getting the heavily blurred look that some seem to prefer. Again, a matter of personal taste.

brian
Hi Brian,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Interestingly, I don't care for the slower shutter speeds for shots as this either. Everyone does it so I'm a bit burned out on it. The only reason I took this image was to share here for input so I knew I'd better keep it recognizable. The is the 1st time I shot moving water so I expected it to be much worse of an image than it is. In fact, I've only shot one other landscape type shot in my life and that was a beach scene that I didn't do so well with either.

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:17 AM.