| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/03/2007 05:10:34 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
A t-shirt is never going to be softer or less-likely to cause scratches than a microfiber cloth unless you've got something physically stuck in the cloth. |
I don't think they were referring to microfiber cloths, but rather the sheets of lens paper. |
|
|
|
04/03/2007 05:46:54 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by De Sousa:
It's a good idea to know the rules very well,
before starting to break them. |
absolutely agree with this :)
and yes A_H, I tend to shoot kids from above too - but it's all relative...I'd still shoot from a lower angle than i would an adult. |
Now come on. Looking at your front page you have several that are at eye level.
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
and ummmm, Exhibit C:
Message edited by author 2007-04-03 17:47:14. |
|
|
|
04/03/2007 05:52:09 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by sher:
that's always been my mantra. you have to know the rules to know when to break them. |
But there are sooooooooooooooo many... *sighs* I'll never be able to break any... (um on purpose that is) laughing... |
|
|
|
04/03/2007 06:32:05 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
There are some very good "rules" in there, but some of them are sheer crap. Virtually anything with "never" should just be eliminated, or at least rewritten.
Annie Liebovitz Self Portrait (Adult Content) |
Talking of sheer crap, I think the Annie Leibovitz self-portrait is, it was only published because she made it - if anyone of us would enter it in a challenge it would hardly score over 5.
|
Actually, I find it to be an incredibly engaging portrait. As for what it would score here.. since when is that any indication of how good a photograph is? |
Yes, it IS engaging, but still crappy. And I know scores on dpc don't represent the worth or meaning of a photo in the real world - I've sold a lot of 5ish scoring shots as well as shots I'd never dare to enter here.
Still, judging only by the technical and compositional aspects, now photographer less famous than Leibovitz could ever publish such a shot. |
I'm sorry, I don't agree with you in the slightest.
Of course.. that's what art is all about.
Message edited by author 2007-04-03 18:48:54. |
|
|
|
04/03/2007 07:51:46 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
There are some very good "rules" in there, but some of them are sheer crap. Virtually anything with "never" should just be eliminated, or at least rewritten.
Annie Liebovitz Self Portrait (Adult Content) |
Talking of sheer crap, I think the Annie Leibovitz self-portrait is, it was only published because she made it - if anyone of us would enter it in a challenge it would hardly score over 5.
|
Actually, I find it to be an incredibly engaging portrait. As for what it would score here.. since when is that any indication of how good a photograph is? |
Yes, it IS engaging, but still crappy. And I know scores on dpc don't represent the worth or meaning of a photo in the real world - I've sold a lot of 5ish scoring shots as well as shots I'd never dare to enter here.
Still, judging only by the technical and compositional aspects, now photographer less famous than Leibovitz could ever publish such a shot. |
I'm sorry, I don't agree with you in the slightest.
Of course.. that's what art is all about. |
when i grow up, i want to be Annie Liebovitz. i think all her work is fascinating.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2007 08:32:24 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Now come on. Looking at your front page you have several that are at eye level.
|
I thought I was pretty clear that it wasn't a hard and fast rule, but a guideline. Beyond that, a) is an animal not a person, b) was shot downward at about 30 degrees (which is typical for me), and c) isn't really about her face, now is it?
the REASON I tend to shoot from above is because it does three wonderful things to people's faces:
1. it urges them to open their eyes a little bit more than the would if i were at eye level, making the eyes more engaging;
2. it opens their face up to the sun which is usually my light source, so there are fewer shadows and their eye sockets don't appear as deep; and
3. because in many cases lifting their chin stretches their face out, making them appear slimmer, which not surprisingly people seem to appreciate. |
|
|
|
04/03/2007 09:58:47 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by yanko:
Now come on. Looking at your front page you have several that are at eye level.
|
I thought I was pretty clear that it wasn't a hard and fast rule, but a guideline. Beyond that, a) is an animal not a person, b) was shot downward at about 30 degrees (which is typical for me), and c) isn't really about her face, now is it?
the REASON I tend to shoot from above is because it does three wonderful things to people's faces:
1. it urges them to open their eyes a little bit more than the would if i were at eye level, making the eyes more engaging;
2. it opens their face up to the sun which is usually my light source, so there are fewer shadows and their eye sockets don't appear as deep; and
3. because in many cases lifting their chin stretches their face out, making them appear slimmer, which not surprisingly people seem to appreciate. |
Well shoot. I forgot to add the smilie. I wasn't at all being serious. |
|
|
|
04/03/2007 10:28:00 PM · #33 |
i'm not convinced I've ever been serious about anything, so s'all good :)
(the reasons were real though - lots of people ask why i do that...this was the first time i think I've ever actually explained my reasoning. it doesn't mean i'm right or anything...it's just my opinion) |
|
|
|
04/03/2007 11:02:11 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by sher:
...when i grow up, i want to be Annie Liebovitz. i think all her work is fascinating. |
We already have a Liebovitz. To emulate her makes for imitations. It's a hell of an effort to conceal this and a humility not particularly conducive to growing one's own rugged confidence to acknowledge the debt.
Annie, after all, grew up to be herself, despite and, probably, because of the works of those who went before her and alongside her.
Message edited by author 2007-04-03 23:02:51. |
|
|
|
04/03/2007 11:11:45 PM · #35 |
A thought.
I, at times break rules due to my experience through other photographers.
I see what they try to do, and the outcome of their vision.
However, their vision still observe 'some' rules while breaking others.
My thought is this...
...if a 'rule' or 'guideline' is "broken", then the other rules and guidelines should be strengthened.
Compensating the unwanted rule to make the image strong.
If all the rules and guidelines are discarded without some sort of compensation, then the image is weak.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2007 11:37:26 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by De Sousa:
It's a good idea to know the rules very well,
before starting to break them. |
Maybe. But some people do it intuitively, knowing what good composition is, without having to first slavishly follow a bunch of hollow rules. The rules blow.
As for a pro that consistently breaks the rules, look no further than Keith Carter. A good example is "Bubble Boy":
Rules broken include, but are not limited to: perfectly level horizon; razor-sharp focus; focusing on eyes, or any other discernable human feature; "distracting elements" (dumbest rule of all). |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 12:30:43 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by sher:
...when i grow up, i want to be Annie Liebovitz. i think all her work is fascinating. |
We already have a Liebovitz. To emulate her makes for imitations. It's a hell of an effort to conceal this and a humility not particularly conducive to growing one's own rugged confidence to acknowledge the debt.
Annie, after all, grew up to be herself, despite and, probably, because of the works of those who went before her and alongside her. |
Are you always such a stick in the mud? ;) |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 02:08:17 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by sher:
...when i grow up, i want to be Annie Liebovitz. i think all her work is fascinating. |
We already have a Liebovitz. To emulate her makes for imitations. It's a hell of an effort to conceal this and a humility not particularly conducive to growing one's own rugged confidence to acknowledge the debt.
Annie, after all, grew up to be herself, despite and, probably, because of the works of those who went before her and alongside her. |
well, since i'm already "grown" with my own style and i have no intention of emulating anyone else, i only meant it facetiously. :)
|
|
|
|
04/04/2007 11:05:54 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by sher:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by sher:
...when i grow up, i want to be Annie Liebovitz. i think all her work is fascinating. |
We already have a Liebovitz. To emulate her makes for imitations. It's a hell of an effort to conceal this and a humility not particularly conducive to growing one's own rugged confidence to acknowledge the debt.
Annie, after all, grew up to be herself, despite and, probably, because of the works of those who went before her and alongside her. |
well, since i'm already "grown" with my own style and i have no intention of emulating anyone else, i only meant it facetiously. :) |
Well, according to Artyste, I was just attempting a lil mud art. |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 11:22:50 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by yanko:
Now come on. Looking at your front page you have several that are at eye level.
|
I thought I was pretty clear that it wasn't a hard and fast rule, but a guideline. Beyond that, a) is an animal not a person, b) was shot downward at about 30 degrees (which is typical for me), and c) isn't really about her face, now is it?
the REASON I tend to shoot from above is because it does three wonderful things to people's faces:
1. it urges them to open their eyes a little bit more than the would if i were at eye level, making the eyes more engaging;
2. it opens their face up to the sun which is usually my light source, so there are fewer shadows and their eye sockets don't appear as deep; and
3. because in many cases lifting their chin stretches their face out, making them appear slimmer, which not surprisingly people seem to appreciate. |
Yup, shootin from above (outdoors) also puts beautiful catchlights in eyes because you just have open sky and your silhouette breaking it up, giving a kind of skylight effect. Check it wurkin in India: (im with Les I love showing myself off)
    
|
|
|
|
04/04/2007 11:24:46 AM · #41 |
Normally, I like to see in any black and white image texture in pure blacks and pure whites, but to Ansel Adams...
..."...a note of pure white or solid black can serve as 'key' to other values...but there is not reason why they must be included in all images, any more than a composition for the piano must include the full range of the eighty-eight notes of the keyboard" - Ansel Adams from his book "The Print"
|
|
|
|
04/04/2007 11:40:06 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by _eug:
I have to disagree with #1. You can't fill the frame and expect to be able to crop to and 8x10. I've learned that I have to padding the sides a small amount in order to be able to crop to different sizes. |
Why not just print 8x12?
Get stock 8x12 mats for 11x14 frames to keep it cheap.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2007 12:14:28 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by rswank:
Originally posted by _eug:
I have to disagree with #1. You can't fill the frame and expect to be able to crop to and 8x10. I've learned that I have to padding the sides a small amount in order to be able to crop to different sizes. |
Why not just print 8x12?
Get stock 8x12 mats for 11x14 frames to keep it cheap. |
Sure. Come up with a perfectly REASONABLE solution to my problem. Although for those additional 2 inches the printing price goes up 50%. That's kinda sill, but in the end, I'm not the one paying for it. :) |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 12:36:27 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by rswank:
Originally posted by _eug:
I have to disagree with #1. You can't fill the frame and expect to be able to crop to and 8x10. I've learned that I have to padding the sides a small amount in order to be able to crop to different sizes. |
Why not just print 8x12?
Get stock 8x12 mats for 11x14 frames to keep it cheap. |
Sure. Come up with a perfectly REASONABLE solution to my problem. Although for those additional 2 inches the printing price goes up 50%. That's kinda sill, but in the end, I'm not the one paying for it. :) |
If you are a Costco member, 8x10 and 8x12 are the same price ($1.49) -- in fact, since they use 12" paper, the 8x10's have to be trimmed-down anyway.
If I have something I want in an 8x10, I fill the "extra" space with some "wallet-size" copies of the same image, for example:
 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/01/2025 07:03:40 PM EDT.
