| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/11/2006 10:51:51 AM · #501 |
Originally posted by pgatt:
I'd personally say the first one I posted was an example of breaking the rule of thirds that works in my opinion despite comments to the contrary in the challenge. I am going to try shoot another one soon though. |
Yeah, that shot you solit the image with the horizon, and very effectively. It's actually fairly close to a viable response to the assignment just posted.
R.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2006 10:54:35 AM · #502 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Corrected, thank you. I'd LOVE to see some urban, or suburban, landscape work in this thread. Buildings, streets, waterscapes, you name it.
R. |
If it stops raining anytime soon I'll try to make it out and take a stab at the symmetrical assignment.
Pam |
|
|
|
05/11/2006 04:33:24 PM · #503 |
Here's a reworking of pic of mine that works, IMHO, because of the central subject and the diagonals of the branches and distant shoreline.
Steve |
|
|
|
05/11/2006 04:38:26 PM · #504 |
Originally posted by Tallbloke:
Here's a reworking of pic of mine that works, IMHO, because of the central subject and the diagonals of the branches and distant shoreline.
Steve |
There ya go! Good example. KNow what bugs me though? that stub of a branch on the left side of the tree (as we look at it) exactly tangent with the dropping hill line... I wish you'd riased the camera an inch or so to drop it slightly under the hill. A nit, really...
R.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2006 04:51:01 PM · #505 |
Sorta leading lines, but a bit late as an assignment because it was tied up in a challenge. I'd originally processed it using the contrast masking thing but then remembered it was a basic challenge. Looks a bit better the way it was done the first time.
I'll get to work on the next assignment... :-)
 |
|
|
|
05/11/2006 04:53:49 PM · #506 |
-The first sunset image appears to break the rule of thirds rule, by including just that sliver of sea at the bottom. Having such a narrow strip of water would usually be considered a bad idea, if you follow the rules. In this particular image, I think it's not a bad thing. It ties the sky to something and makes it more than just a sunset shot.
-The second image, with the motel, puts the subject in the dead center of the image, another "no-no" according to the rules. The large triangle of darkness is also non-standard. I think the dark area is distracting, but as far as the motel goes, I don't see a problem with its being centered, especially since the other motel units trail behind it.
-The third image, the tidal flats, does not appear to have any particular compositional center. To be honest, it just doesn't work for me. I look at it, and my eye doesn't know where to go. In this one, the narrow strip of sky does not seem to aid the image.
-As for the final two images, the breakwater seems to follow the rule of thirds, and while the last sunset image does not so much, both actually work for me. I find them well composed and I guess lack the experience to find broken rules that hinder them.
I'll be looking for a shot for this assignment and will be posting it soon. :-)
|
|
|
|
05/11/2006 05:32:19 PM · #507 |
Here is an urban landscape (not much open space 2 minutes from Ground Zero you know) of a type that might fit the assignment: down under Brooklyn Bridge.
The central point, formed by the intersecting architectural elements of bridge and old spice warehouse - is a little to the left. I should probably crop the right side a little anyway to remove half window/doorway.
By the way, have been following this thread and learning a lot. Send me the tuition tab sometime, Bear. |
|
|
|
05/11/2006 08:16:43 PM · #508 |
Originally posted by pineapple:
Here is an urban landscape (not much open space 2 minutes from Ground Zero you know) of a type that might fit the assignment: down under Brooklyn Bridge.
The central point, formed by the intersecting architectural elements of bridge and old spice warehouse - is a little to the left. I should probably crop the right side a little anyway to remove half window/doorway.
By the way, have been following this thread and learning a lot. Send me the tuition tab sometime, Bear. |
That's a REALLY nice shot. I'm actually not sure I'd even call it a rule-breaker per se. What it's doing is using several different compositional models at the same time, overlaying them. You have "intersecting diagonals", you have "rule of thirds" on the right-side division and on the location of the optical center of the bridge supports, and you have a strange, half-occluded, "bilateral symmetry" going for you. I live the way the fire hydrant picks up the center-line of the bridge tower higher up; I wish the hydrant were dead-center and the arch behind it as well, actually :-)
But what the heck happened to this in PP? I blow this up and it looks ferociously jaggy. Send me the full-size, unedited jpg if you like and let me look at it?
Tuition tab? That's a good idea. I wonder how many of y'all would pay me for this LOL. I can make a career out of it, maybe? jejejeâ„¢
R.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2006 08:20:41 PM · #509 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Now, I'd welcome some discussion amongst y'all about WHICH rules have been broken, and how this hurts or hinders the appreciation of the image. |
-The first sunset image appears to break the rule of thirds rule, by including just that sliver of sea at the bottom. Having such a narrow strip of water would usually be considered a bad idea, if you follow the rules. In this particular image, I think it's not a bad thing. It ties the sky to something and makes it more than just a sunset shot.
-The second image, with the motel, puts the subject in the dead center of the image, another "no-no" according to the rules. The large triangle of darkness is also non-standard. I think the dark area is distracting, but as far as the motel goes, I don't see a problem with its being centered, especially since the other motel units trail behind it.
-The third image, the tidal flats, does not appear to have any particular compositional center. To be honest, it just doesn't work for me. I look at it, and my eye doesn't know where to go. In this one, the narrow strip of sky does not seem to aid the image.
-As for the final two images, the breakwater seems to follow the rule of thirds, and while the last sunset image does not so much, both actually work for me. I find them well composed and I guess lack the experience to find broken rules that hinder them. |
I'd like to hear more comments like this from others, please. There's no right or wrong answers. But I want you thinking about this. For example, he discusses the tidal flats image and says "the eye doesn't know where to go". For him, that's a flaw, and I accept that. For me, it was the GOAL. That's how I "felt" about this particular scene, lost and adrift as it were.
So let's hear it :-) Discussing MY images is safe, you can't hurt my feelings, I put up images others find compositionally controversial so we can discuss them and learn by so doing.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-05-11 20:22:47.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2006 11:49:07 PM · #510 |
1. wellfleet widesky - while the narrow band of water on the bottom does break the rule of thirds, it also puts more emphasis on the sky while still providing a visual reference that gives the shot depth.
2 truro motels - the dark window is dead centre of the shot. The point of the dark triangle works to direct you to the subject while following in a straight line past the edges of the dark triangle, you find the bottom edges of the cabins aligned with it. (if that makes any sense) so while OdysseyF2 find the dark patch distracting, I feel that it is directing my eye to follow into the shot along the cabins.
3. tidal flats - working exactly opposite to the 1st shot, the emphasis is on the wide expanse of the tidal flats. The narrow band of sky again serves to add depth to the picture and emphasize how far the flats stretch. I don't think having the horizon on a thirds line would achieve the same effect of desolation.
4. deep hole inlet - (I really like the colours in this by the way) the only thing in this shot that is roughly on a thirds line is the start of the breakwater. The horizon is above the thirds line and the moon while on a thirds line is to the right of a thirds intersection. I think the angle of the breakwater is what gives this shot the illusion of meeting the thirds rule which is why it works so well.
5. tight gold - the patch of sand at the bottom draws your eye down to the bird and then past to the highlights in the water, then back up to the sky. I also notice that the width of the sky and the widest part of the sand are about equal which seems to provide a balance. the water across the upper third line also appears a shade darker. Don't know if this was intentional or not. Overall, I like it.
All of these shots show that even if you don't always follow the rules, as long as you have a visual balance in the shot, it can work out very well indeed.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2006 12:14:24 AM · #511 |
    
1st shot: I get lost in the sky, there is a vanishing point that the clouds form which orders my eye to follow and then there is that attractive lower right sliver. My eyes cant settle and meander, I must discipline them and am left to wonder what is in the sky that demands my attention so.
2nd shot: Nits - the fence rail to the right and the wire to the left, both act as a stop to a flow back into the scene at both sides, but, like I said, nits.
3rd shot: Having been often around salt marshes and flats, my attention is immediately drawn to the human and wonder what they are doing. Raking, wading for clams or just looking to get hip deep in mud. Wish they were slightly larger. Since I am drawn to that as the subject it looks to be off the thirds map, but I don't mind that at all, I just want to see more of them.
4th shot: The eyes are torn again, the jetty is dark enough however that I am able to easily enough shift to the colorful horizon and then back to the jetty. It grows on me and I wind up liking the effect in the end.
5th shot: The objects of interest almost act as the frame for this shot, the colorful skyline is high in the shot, the reflecting sun is far to the right and the silhouette is at the bottom, add to that a diagonal patch in the corner, I really got a chuckle out of this one. Still, once you begin to see it as a puzzle it fits together well.
Ats my 2c
edit: multple spekling errots
Message edited by author 2006-05-12 01:34:02. |
|
|
|
05/12/2006 12:33:44 PM · #512 |
Here are my attempts at the latest assignment. This one actually seems harder than the others - I've spent so much time over the last year learning the rules and trying to follow them that it's hard to find examples where I've "broken" them.
 
In PP, I used contrast masking, and then a mid-range pass of the velvia action that was mentioned in another thread.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2006 04:15:41 PM · #513 |
I'm a latecomer trying to catch up with the thread. It's fascinating and very helpful -- thanks so much, BearMusic!
Is there a Mac-saavy user watching who could translate these into the Mac keystrokes for me or tell me how to do it manually? I've tried cmd-alt-tilde, cntrl-alt-tilde, etc., with no luck.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Contrast Masking
In PS CS2: use the shadow/highlight dialogue box and play with it. Can't help you there, don't have it.
In PS 7.0 (and maybe CS, if no shadow/highlight there) do this:
1. Open image and save-as a psd file.
2. Key "cntrl-alt-tilde" (tilde is ~) to create a feathered highlights selection
3. Key "cntrl-J" to create a new layer with only the selected areas on it. Name this layer "highlights"
4. Click BG layer to make it active again
5. "cntrl-alt-tilde" again, then "cntrl-shift-I" to invert the selection, and "cntrl-J" to make another new layer with the shadow selection loaded; call this layer "shadows".
To decrease contrast to preserve highlight detail and shadow detail both, in the layers dialogue box set the layer mode of the "highlight" layer at "multiply" and of the "shadow" layer at "screen". Adjust the relative opacities of both layers so it looks the way you want it to.
To increase contrast, screen the highlights and multiply the shadows; this isn't something I do very much, this can be best accomplished in levels and curves usually. However, sometimes I multiply BOTH layers and vary the relative opacities. I'm still playing with this. Also, sometimes I will set the shadow mask at "soft light" instead of "multiply". You need to play around with these settings to find what works and what does not work.
|
|
|
|
|
05/12/2006 04:31:19 PM · #514 |
The most common PC-to-Mac combos are:
Ctrl = Cmd
Alt = Option |
|
|
|
05/13/2006 05:33:42 PM · #515 |
Originally posted by pineapple:
|
Pineapple sent me the original. I processed it by using PS skew control to square up the verticals as much as I could. I ran contrast masking with the brights layer at 100% multiply and the darks layer at 100% soft light. I put some hue/sat into the reds and yellows. I ran sky gradient and foreground gradient both. I did an overall contrast/brightness adjustment layer to tune it slightly. I didn't spend a lot of time on it.
My main concern was how messed-up the upper left looked in the originally posted image. I discovered that it's a natural effect of the criss-crossing wires, a moire of sorts. I think it may be a little better in this version, but it's NOT solely due to PP.
R.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2006 09:07:49 PM · #516 |
That looks a lot better. Living so close to the Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Williamsburg bridges, I get to take a lot of photos in all sorts of conditions. The moire issue often comes up with the suspension wires. I've been trying to better understand why it occurs and what I might do to reduce the effect.
Your processing is much better than my attempt. I must get used to using PS skew controls. Taking shots in the city means photographing a lot of buildings and the perspective skew can be irritating sometimes, such as in my recent challenge entry.
Learning, learning... and enjoying it. |
|
|
|
05/14/2006 11:51:26 AM · #517 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
|
Of these two images, I wouldn't consider either of them to be "rule-breaking", although arguably the first is "rule-ignoring", which is a different class of thing altogether.
So, with your implied permission, I'll try to make a point here off that first image, OK? To "break" a rule would be to use it differently, if you catch my drift; for example, to approximate the rule of thirds but use a "rule of fourths" to do so. Or to do a bilaterally symmetrical composition where the subject itself is offset by 25% to one direction or the other, so the image is, in effect, an imbalanced "balanced composition".
In the case of the first image, to my eye what we have here is altogether a bit of a muddle. There's something of a diagonal, leading-lines element to it, and that's really about it. There's an implied horizon at the center of the image, so that "breaks the rule" of not centering the horizon, but it does it to no particular effect. The goal here is to use other-than-classic compositional modes for a reason, such that a viewer with some compositional education might actually say "Hmmmm, that could have followed the "kumquat rule" but look how he's varied from it in such-and-so a way, and see how that fribbles the partoum so effectively!" But in the given image, the overall impression is of a disordered, fairly accidental arrangement of elements.
Now look at the second image, the mountain scape. That's very much a rule of thirds image, three equal, horizontal bands essentially. To a certain extent there's a subject smack in the center, and it would be more purely rule of thirds if that peak were offset to the right a fair distance, no question. So yeah, to some extent it "breaks the rule of thirds" while still being a strongly rule-of-thirds-oriented image, which is interesting enough, but is it done to good effect?
IN other words, would the imagined image with the peak shifted to the right, or to the left for that matter, be a better image? I would argue, probably yes. So....
But as long as we're there, take a look at this variant of the image: open up the original and this one, and tab back and forth between them rapidly.
See what's happening here? See how much more DEPTH we have now? Can anyone tell me what steps I've taken an d how they have added depth to the image? They aren't just the obvious steps, incidentally; those DO make a difference, but there's one, more subtle step that makes a real difference.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-05-14 11:54:19.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2006 12:38:17 PM · #518 |
| Looks like you have applied a gradient to darken the sky colour and also lightened the snowtops of the mountains. In addition, I think you have rendered some "mistiness" in the sky (don't ask me how) just over the mountains and that is what giving it the added depth. The faint clouds appear even farther away than the mountain and so emphasize the distance. |
|
|
|
05/14/2006 01:14:15 PM · #519 |
The tonal relationship of the mountain peak and the sky seems to me to be the key here. Not sure how to explain it but I'll bet as a B&W conversion it would be more obvious.
essentailly by darkening the sky and lightening the mountain the DOF has been improved. Theres some sharpening too but I'll stick with my first answer.
DO I win a pineapple?
Steve |
|
|
|
05/14/2006 01:40:27 PM · #520 |
| You've also highlighted the mid-range foliage somehow, creating depth there where there was none before. And the tracks in the snow really jump out - sharpening, maybe? |
|
|
|
05/14/2006 01:59:09 PM · #521 |
Here's one I hadn't processed until today because I wasn't sure about the composition.
The rule of thirds is broken here because leading line in this shots runs right up the centre, splitting the photo in half and half.
does it work?
Steve
|
|
|
|
05/14/2006 02:45:10 PM · #522 |
Originally posted by Tallbloke:
Here's one I hadn't processed until today because I wasn't sure about the composition.
The rule of thirds is broken here because leading line in this shots runs right up the centre, splitting the photo in half and half.
does it work?
Steve |
Yes, it works fine. Now go back to the original and work you heart out on PP with contrast masking, possibly in several passes, and see what you can pull out of it :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2006 02:55:03 PM · #523 |
1. Did contrast masking with BOTH layers set at "soft light", bright layer at 40% opacity
2. Merged all to base layer, duplicated base layer
3. Hue/saturation layer to neutralize color of sky
4. Rectangular marquee to select entire foreground to the far shoreline and saved selection
5. Hue/saturation layer on foreground selection to neutralize color slightly, plus levels layer to adjust tones
6. Invert foreground selection, hue/saturation layer with increased yellow and red saturation (shows up in hills)
7. Invert foreground selection, curves adjustment layr, set white point with eyedropper on brightest snow ridge
8. New, empty layer over all set to multiply mode. Sky and foreground gradients added and faded. Hue/Saturation adjusted within this layer (not as a new adjustment layer) to finalize the darkness and color of the sky.
9. USM to crisp it all up.
It's true, the basic effect is to give more depth, a LOT more depth. The foreground gradient is critical to this, btw.
R.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2006 03:11:39 PM · #524 |
OK
I think major improvement after post processing was to move the focus further "into" the shot by dulling down the bright area of foam in the foreground.
Steve
|
|
|
|
05/14/2006 03:59:08 PM · #525 |
It will take me forever to catch up...
|
|
