| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/12/2002 02:57:19 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Blue skies can be boring too. But I have a question, does this picture
look too contrived/ set-up, or does the tree help the composition. There are others there that just have the pure blue sky.
[/i]
I don''t think it looks contrived at all, just very well-executed. I think you may have given away your entry again, though. ;-)
-Terry
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/12/2002 2:57:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2002 03:06:38 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by clubjuggle:
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
I don''t think it looks contrived at all, just very well-executed. I think you may have given away your entry again, though. ;-)
-Terry
Nope, the Golden Gate shot that is in the challenge is nothing to do with me. |
|
|
|
06/12/2002 03:30:12 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Nope, the Golden Gate shot that is in the challenge is nothing to do with me.
I stand corrected.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
06/12/2002 04:45:53 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by BAMartin:
[i]Originally posted by clubjuggle:
Rob,
Another technique you may consider is one that Barbara Martin taught me.
Blue skies can be boring too. But I have a question, does this picture
look too contrived/ set-up, or does the tree help the composition. There are others there that just have the pure blue sky.
[/i]
I like the tree. I think it adds something to this picture that other shots of the GGB don't have. For one the branch curves along with the curvature of the wires on the bridge which is nice. Also the branches and its dark color sort of grounds the viewer.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2002 05:11:15 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by chariot:
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Blue skies can be boring too. But I have a question, does this picture
look too contrived/ set-up, or does the tree help the composition. There are others there that just have the pure blue sky.
I like the tree. I think it adds something to this picture that other shots of the GGB don't have. For one the branch curves along with the curvature of the wires on the bridge which is nice. Also the branches and its dark color sort of grounds the viewer.
Pretty much my comment too; I shoot a lot of pictures with repeating shapes, such as my Golden Gate Bridge shot (it's in there somewhere!) or Sunset #23 where I had to incorporate the inevitable power lines as best I could. |
|
|
|
06/12/2002 05:19:34 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
If I am composing a shot that contains a lot of sky, I try to underexpose about a half stop sometimes... If i''m not sure, I do a little bracketing and go down one or two increments on the aperture. If I''m lucky enuff to have my tripod with me I will go manual and find an exposure that works...
It''s usually in my best interest to fix brightly lit outdoor shots with the levels adjustement and hue/saturation adjustments in the software when I''m finished takin pitchers :)
Then again, sometimes "it''s better to be lucky than good." My son Isaac was helping out last weekend shooting roster photos for my softball team. The photos of John (GianFranco) and Fanny included some pretty intense sky. I did a slight lightening in the midtones to bring out the faces, and resampled the images smaller, but no other cropping or post-processing.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/12/2002 5:19:55 PM. |
|
|
|
06/12/2002 05:25:43 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
Sheyingshe & Patella - interesting software solutions, I''ve avoided TIFF due to the large file size (10MB on mine), I''m often on photo expeditions, don''t have Gigs of space. Does TIFF get less photo quality trade off effect than JPG? By that I mean, most alterations to JPG data have a negative trade-off. Like turning up the color saturation will introduce areas of graininess, and so on. Spot editing isn''t legal on this site. (This didn''t read as funny as I wrote it)
There's really not a whole lot of difference in the quality of .tif and the highest quality .jpg with your camera *when you take the picture* unless you're planning to make posters or croping deep into the file. The important part is when you start processing it, save it as a .tif to stop the cumulative degradation in image quality caused by .jpg recalulations. If you're using Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, or some others you could use a type of compression called 'LZW' which is lossless. It doesn't give the sometimes extreem compression of .jpg but depending on the image you can usually get 30-50%. When you're ready to submit, you can resize and 'Save For Web' or save as a .jpg then and the original of your art will remain pure as the driven snow.
|
|
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: 10/04/2025 06:16:56 AM EDT.
