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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 4, 2006, 10:41 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

This was taken at Christmas.I wastraveling in Scotland with a friend of mine from Peru so I wanted to include her in many shots as a memento of the trip.

Although she really likes this photograph which is the main thing, I'm wondering if the image would have a broader appealif I had also takenone more last frame with the figurenot included. So I could have produced a less personal shot. Only because the scene was kinda interesting to me. Do you think it is worth to re-shoot thisagain for likeI say, a more broader appeal?

Any thoughts appreciated.
Attached Images
 
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 4, 2006, 11:15 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

It's hard to do vacation shots in a way that the people add value to anyone other than their immediate family, and you haven't cracked that nut here. However, while I would agree that this particular pose only adds personal interest to the shot, it is not so invasive that it detracts noticeably from the shot to my mind. So I don't think that a re-take purely for the purpose of excluding the person would be a better shot.

ETA: I should have said explicitly that I like the composition of this shot overall. My comments are only directed to the specific question that you posed.



tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2006, 12:51 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
JunixRose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 155
Default

I find the colors and texture of the shot very gripping. This image would nicely fit in a series along the walls of a coffee shop, especially one far removed from the scene photographed. Retaking the scene without the figure may help, but the figure doesn't greatly detract. The biggest offput in this shot to me isn't the person but the bizzare framing on the right. I think that effect could work very well in some situations where the extra picture was needed to showcase a powerful element, like a pole, mountain, person, etc, but in this case just pulls too much attention with nothing in it to justify the draw.

Nate
JunixRose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2006, 1:05 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

The framing was to correct the stitch deformation. I usually crop it off. Somehow I thought it added a 3 dimensional aspect. Maybe I should not of included it in here for critique of the shot and forthe question I have asked.

Maybe just ignore it for arguments sake if youthink its detrimental.
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2006, 3:21 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 33
Default

Wonderful image. I really enjoy your stitched panoramic shots. One of the firstitems/usersI 'search' for when i visit Steve's forumonce/twice a month.

Reyour question - I think the picture would have broader appeal without the figure in the doorway. Initially the person did not "intrude" but after a while my eyes tended to end up on the Rh side. It could also of course be a response to the question posed... :?

What I like about thisshot and your stitched pano's in general is thewide exposure range ('apparent' range ?) you achieve inthe final stitch of theindividual frames. In this shot the exposure and detail visiblemoving from the white crumbling plastered wall on the LH side - to the very brightly lityellow fields in the middle to theroof detail on the RH side is just wonderful.

I know you have explained how you go about this some time ago - but can't recall now whether you usea constant (average) exposure for all frames or do you expose each frame indivdually with a fixed aperture for DOF considerations.

How many frames went into this stitch? Trying very hard to find one,I think Ispot one blending zone in the blue sky to the right of the sat dish (?) :-)

Thanks for sharing your work...

Andrew
andrewd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2006, 4:47 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

Great shot composition and the saturation and detail is excellent. I do enjoy your posts most of all since it is beyond the usual. Your style has definite appeal to me and your panos are just wonderful to look at.

Love your imagination and your PP skills.

The only thing that took away from this was your ©2006 on the frame. Matter of taste and possibly what is necessary to protect what is your image.

Look forward to your fresh ideas and PP skills to follow.

Tom
vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2006, 3:04 AM   #7
Member
 
stuartmoffat.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 49
Default

as above says, brilliant composition!, being from scotland myself, I think you have captured it very well
stuartmoffat.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2006, 5:03 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
kenmck15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,568
Default

this is a great shot

i love theimpact of the colours and textures and the pano aproach and crop is great. i think the image is great, only thig i dont like is the page curl ont he edge

ken
kenmck15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2006, 5:51 AM   #9
Member
 
stuartmoffat.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 49
Default

yeah the page edge looks realy tacky, but otherwise its great.
stuartmoffat.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2006, 8:37 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

Quote:
I know you have explained how you go about this some time ago - but can't recall now whether you usea constant (average) exposure for all frames or do you expose each frame indivdually with a fixed aperture for DOF considerations.

How many frames went into this stitch? Trying very hard to find one,I think Ispot one blending zone in the blue sky to the right of the sat dish (?)

Andrew,

This is 6 shots taken in the portrait aspect ratio.

I prefer in most cases to expose at each location, which goes against the normal practice. This is better in my opinion if you are shooting outside and one side of the photo faces the sun and the other side away. If you use a constant exposure you will only achieve the correct exposure over a certain area of the pano.

However I try to bracket each location also, which gives me many options in mixing and matching shots during and after raw conversion. The photo can become a bit of a jigsaw puzzle in order not to show differing exposures at the overlaps sometimes.

Therefore I also stitch the shot a few times with the differing exposures and then layer the results together, erasing out what is not needed. The end effect producing a broader tonal range. Well thats the hope anyway.

Indoor, or outdoor, under fairly constant lighting it would be better to fix the exposure. Makes life a lot easier during the stitch, that for sure. It all depends on what your after.

Further explanation and pano tips in these threads, for your information.
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=90
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=90
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...408133#p408133

Thanks for your comments.



LBoy 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 12:29 PM.