Early Morning from the Bluffs - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

07/23/2005 11:53:25 PM · #1

Shot this half an hour after sunrise, give or take. Comments? (There's somethign strange I just noticed about those figures...)

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-07-23 23:54:38.

sacredspirit

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

07/24/2005 12:09:18 AM · #2

Robt, the first thing I seen after looking at this photo was the horizon, is it just me, or does it seem like the horizon should take up more room in the photo, or be gone altogether.
Another neat post processing idea, might be to put a gradient on the horizon. You may need to duplicate layers, or mask, but it might be kinda cool.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

07/24/2005 12:28:44 AM · #3

Originally posted by sacredspirit:

It alreadyhas a gradient applied LOL. I do that a lot. I had it darker but it didn't look natural so I faded it back. As to whether there's not enough sky, that's subjective I guess. I like the balance of it myself...

R.

sacredspirit

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

07/24/2005 12:30:34 AM · #4

And that is what matters most Robt. I wasn't sure myself, I just wanted to blurt it out there before I thought about it to much.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

07/24/2005 12:59:37 AM · #5

Originally posted by sacredspirit:

And that is what matters most Robt. I wasn't sure myself, I just wanted to blurt it out there before I thought about it to much.

And I'm glad you sommented to that aspect of it. I'm sorry if I seemed to be dismissing you. It's a valid response for sure :-)

R./

mycelium

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

07/24/2005 01:10:52 AM · #6

With regard to what has been said already, I have to say that I like pictures with just a sliver of sky in them. It adds a useful anchor point to the picture as well as adding extra depth without needless adherence to dividing the frame by thirds. I find it frees up composition a lot and helps to keep things from looking rigidly forced into a certain part of the composition.

Compositionally, I like the picture; the two people in the foreground and the third in the background, plus the two birds, strike a nice balance across the image, provide a good sense of depth, and make more than half of the picture into active areas. I like the gentle curve of the coast combined with the tension that the apex of the curve has with the right side of the frame.

That aside, I'm afraid this picture doesn't work for me. The border distracts badly, and the stippling on the sand just rubs me the wrong way. If the highlight/shadow pattern were either a bit finer or coarser, I think it would work better--but as it is, it looks blurry and over-contrasty to me. I think the faults weigh too heavily against the merits of this picture. I am much more a fan of some of your other pieces.

Damon

mycelium

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

07/24/2005 01:11:51 AM · #7

With regard to what has been said already, I have to say that I like pictures with just a sliver of sky in them. It adds a useful anchor point to the picture as well as adding extra depth without needless adherence to dividing the frame by thirds. I find it frees up composition a lot and helps to keep subjects in a picture from looking forced into place.

Compositionally, I like the picture; the two people in the foreground and the third in the background, plus the two birds, strike a nice balance across the image, provide a good sense of depth, and make more than half of the picture into active areas. I like the gentle curve of the coast combined with the tension that the apex of the curve has with the right side of the frame.

That aside, I'm afraid this picture doesn't work for me. The border distracts badly, and the stippling on the sand just rubs me the wrong way. If the highlight/shadow pattern were either a bit finer or coarser, I think it would work better--but as it is, it looks blurry and over-contrasty to me. I think the faults weigh too heavily against the merits of this picture. I am much more a fan of some of your other pieces.

Damon

07/24/2005 01:31:11 AM · #8

Originally posted by mycelium:

Valid point, and I'm strongly leanin towards lattening out the sand. It's a simple matter of adjusting relative luminance of red and yellow channels.

Robt.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

07/24/2005 01:33:36 AM · #9

So far nobody's noticed that the figures are casting no shadows. I can't for the life of me figure out why...

Robt.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

07/24/2005 06:09:33 AM · #10

Originally posted by bear_music:

So far nobody's noticed that the figures are casting no shadows. I can't for the life of me figure out why...

Robt.

Could it be because the lighting is diffuse? There appears to be a little haze up after all.

mycelium

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

07/24/2005 11:39:07 AM · #11

Originally posted by AJAger:

Originally posted by bear_music:
So far nobody's noticed that the figures are casting no shadows. I can't for the life of me figure out why...

Robt.

Could it be because the lighting is diffuse? There appears to be a little haze up after all.

looks like the shadows disappear due to the angle of the sand, like a piece of paper perpendicular to the viewer.

07/24/2005 11:45:54 AM · #12

Originally posted by mycelium:

Originally posted by AJAger:

Originally posted by bear_music:
So far nobody's noticed that the figures are casting no shadows. I can't for the life of me figure out why...

Robt.

Could it be because the lighting is diffuse? There appears to be a little haze up after all.

looks like the shadows disappear due to the angle of the sand, like a piece of paper perpendicular to the viewer.

Re: diffuse light, it isn't; look at the sand, it's got plenty of texture. It's direct, and low, sunlight. The angle of the sand is a possibility, I suppose. I really don't know. Close examination shows traces of shadow, I'd just expect to see it stronger. Ah, well... :-)

R.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

07/24/2005 12:22:15 PM · #13

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by mycelium:

Originally posted by AJAger:

Originally posted by bear_music:
So far nobody's noticed that the figures are casting no shadows. I can't for the life of me figure out why...

Robt.

Could it be because the lighting is diffuse? There appears to be a little haze up after all.

looks like the shadows disappear due to the angle of the sand, like a piece of paper perpendicular to the viewer.

Re: diffuse light, it isn't; look at the sand, it's got plenty of texture. It's direct, and low, sunlight. The angle of the sand is a possibility, I suppose. I really don't know. Close examination shows traces of shadow, I'd just expect to see it stronger. Ah, well... :-)

R.

It just seemed to me that there was a lot of brightness in the sky all round and I figure that this would lead to the shadows of people being washed out, but leave the shadows in the small ripples in the sand intact. I know that you know a lot more about lighting than me, I'm just thinking out loud, trying to get some ideas myself.