| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/26/2007 06:43:01 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by soup:
i dunno - the BG in the third one makes it hard to look at the subject.
a gradient of some sort - like from a polarizer would have done wonders.
the first is the best - shows the subjects doing what they do while hinting at the surroundings with some decent bokeh.
Originally posted by idnic:
#3 is just about perfect - clean, crisp, shows the viewer PRECISELY what you wanted them to see.
|
|
And I concur :) |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:45:52 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Here are three shots with the same subject but varying backgrounds ... which "work(s)" better and why? |
I don't particularly like either, frankly, but if I had to choose, I'd choose #1, because the background is less active in it. Did you mean this as a demonstration to the initial topic? Clear sky is hardly a "removed" background, although a clear sky with no clouds can be a bad choice of background for different reasons. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:48:48 PM · #128 |
| I tend to like simplicity, and so I LIKE a single subject on a solid background. It is one of my favorite types of shot. As with anything, some are well done and some aren't. I do also like shots with backgrounds, as long as they add to the overall effect of the image and/or don't overpower the subject. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:52:53 PM · #129 |
| There's way too many rules. Nothing is without value. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 07:07:46 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by biteme:
did you guys make the conclusion that everybody's got a different opinion? |
Ah! So *that's* what's been going wrong in the forums all this time! :) |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 07:14:21 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by biteme:
did you guys make the conclusion that everybody's got a different opinion? |
Ah! So *that's* what's been going wrong in the forums all this time! :) |
No way. If you think about it how do we really know we each are seeing colors the same in our eyes. What is blue to me could be yellow to you. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 07:18:39 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
No way. If you think about it how do we really know we each are seeing colors the same in our eyes. What is blue to me could be yellow to you. |
Maybe what I think Tasty Wheat tasted like actually tasted like oatmeal, or tuna fish. That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken, for example: maybe they couldn't figure out what to make chicken taste like, which is why chicken tastes like everything.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 07:20:35 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Maybe what I think Tasty Wheat tasted like actually tasted like oatmeal, or tuna fish. That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken, for example: maybe they couldn't figure out what to make chicken taste like, which is why chicken tastes like everything. |
Stop the movie quotes! |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 07:20:45 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by boomtap:
No way. If you think about it how do we really know we each are seeing colors the same in our eyes. What is blue to me could be yellow to you. |
Maybe what I think Tasty Wheat tasted like actually tasted like oatmeal, or tuna fish. That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken, for example: maybe they couldn't figure out what to make chicken taste like, which is why chicken tastes like everything. |
mmmmmm.... runny eggs....
edited for thread relevance: mmmmmm... runny eggs on a blank white background...
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 19:30:34. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 07:23:14 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Stop the movie quotes! |
Sorry, but it was a bit relevant... or perhaps all our photos should taste like chicken?
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 07:30:38 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
mmmmmm.... runny eggs.... |
Yummy... runny eggs. Where's my spoon?
Damn. There is no spoon.
edited for thread relevance: 
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 19:33:03. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 07:35:20 PM · #137 |
And that spoon (or no spoon) should be on a "relevant" background :-P
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 07:36:20 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by boomtap:
No way. If you think about it how do we really know we each are seeing colors the same in our eyes. What is blue to me could be yellow to you. |
Maybe what I think Tasty Wheat tasted like actually tasted like oatmeal, or tuna fish. That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken, for example: maybe they couldn't figure out what to make chicken taste like, which is why chicken tastes like everything. |
LOL! exactly...The matrix tells you what you like, so just give in and vote how the program tells you to vote. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 07:50:01 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Here are three shots with the same subject but varying backgrounds ... which "work(s)" better and why? |
I don't particularly like either, frankly, but if I had to choose, I'd choose #1, because the background is less active in it. Did you mean this as a demonstration to the initial topic? Clear sky is hardly a "removed" background, although a clear sky with no clouds can be a bad choice of background for different reasons. |
Look more carefully, that isn't a clear sky, its removed and replaced background.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 07:53:45 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Look more carefully, that isn't a clear sky, its removed and replaced background. |
I once watched a video on outdoor floral photography that suggested the photographer bring along blue paper for just THAT reason. To isolate the flower from an often cluttered background.
I don't think many of us could tell the difference, unless we allowed a shadow to land on the paper..
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 19:54:23.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 09:22:17 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by idnic:
I was just telling a friend this morning:
A photographer CHOOSES what details to include in his/her image. He isn't responsible for the univers, but he IS responsible for EVERY detail in his presentation. Everything in the frame should support the image's overall meaning or its distracting from it. For example if you have an image that includes a hand and the nails are shabby and hand is dirty you get a different response from the viewer than if the hand were clean and nails manicured.
The background can be a HUGE part of the image but like any detail if it isn't helping the image, its hurting it. |
Wow, thank you for providing one of the very rare comments that actually address the topic, instead of worrying about whether the OP is nice enough or what scores well. Yes, "Everything in the frame should support the image's overall meaning or it[']s distracting from it." And that includes the background. Yes! But you cannot remove the background (unless you remove the subject, but that's another topic). If you attempt to remove the background, then you will simply create a background of emptiness. That is *still* a background. A subject *always* interacts with its background. You can't simply avoid the issue by removing it. After all, there is so little in a photograph. It needs everything it can to make its impact, to say something that won't instantly dissolve from a memory that is buffeted with superficial images every day. So "can a removed background work?" is the wrong question. The question is "can I ignore the background?" and the answer is no. A black background can work. A white background can work. IF it is an integral part of the picture. And at DPC, more often than not, it is NOT. And my penalty is much worse than 2 points in most cases.
And having a studio is NO excuse for not having a background. Quite the opposite. A studio is a controlled environment where you can create the background you need. Take a look at what Man Ray did in a studio. Take a look at the history of painting.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 09:22:30 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Look more carefully, that isn't a clear sky, its removed and replaced background. |
I must be missing the point to this. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 09:26:19 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
mmmmmm.... runny eggs.... |
Yummy... runny eggs. Where's my spoon?
Damn. There is no spoon.
edited for thread relevance: |
Dang, I'm a bit late here...
Another blasted background...
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 09:47:06 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by idnic:
#2 the background distracts A LOT from the point of the image |
Wait until you see the psychedelic version ... : )
Thanks for the feedback -- I pretty much agree with your assessments.
In the print version, I did clone out that bit of leaf in the lower-left. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 11:54:18 PM · #145 |
I think it's a learning process.
First we take snapshots and think, "Wow, that's really neat."
Second, we start to notice the clutter in the background and start to remove it.
Third, we remove everything to isolate the subject and really make it powerful.
Lastly, we add to the background to enhance the subject.
Me, I'm still on 3, but maybe I'll move to 4. |
|
|
|
01/27/2007 10:49:45 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I think it's a learning process.
First we take snapshots and think, "Wow, that's really neat."
Second, we start to notice the clutter in the background and start to remove it.
Third, we remove everything to isolate the subject and really make it powerful.
Lastly, we add to the background to enhance the subject. |
How about adding another step to have a secondary subject in the background related to the main subject, to tell a story?
|
|
|
|
01/27/2007 11:32:04 AM · #147 |
well considering i value the end result with out regard to the means used to acheive it ( for the most p art ), i'll leave the creation of that topic up to you.
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by soup:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is going to be a tough to get a grip on - no?
Yes, this is a tough one. I would prefer not to take this thread away from its original topic. If you want to discuss it now, I'd rather you opened another thread just for that. |
Message edited by author 2007-01-27 12:09:23.
|
|
|
|
01/27/2007 04:25:34 PM · #148 |
To me this argument is like saying shooting B&W is a cop out because if the photographers were really skilled they would use color to enhance they're picture.
It takes real talent and skill to shoot a good picture whether it has a background or not just like it takes real skill to shoot a good B&W photo.
I believe a lot of the problem some people had with this thread is the implication that shooting without a background means the photographer is less skilled or lazy. |
|
|
|
01/27/2007 04:45:20 PM · #149 |
 hey i got one with cool natural background :-)
|
|
|
|
01/27/2007 05:18:32 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
I believe a lot of the problem some people had with this thread is the implication that shooting without a background means the photographer is less skilled or lazy. |
The implication of an image without background is that the image is less interesting to look at and rarely has artistic merit.
Why some photographers are doing this is also an interesting question. I believe a few reasons have been identified in this thread (in no particular order):
1. The natural background for some subject prevents a successful image; shooting it with the background removed is better than shooting it with the natural background.
2. Some say that they, actually, like removed backgrounds for aesthetic reasons. Perhaps it's the huge commercial/advertising industry having its influence upon the people's tastes by surrounding us with background-less images (billboards, magazines, TV ads, etc.).
3. Photographers, who submit to Stock sites, know that replacing the backgrounds by complete white or black increases the sales of an image, because it is easier to use such images in publications. Perhaps such photographers extend this habit into photographing for pleasure, or maybe they submit to DPC what they submit to stock, I don't know.
4. Some claim that they remove the background to increase an image effectiveness at the DPC (meaning - to inflate its score), since in the few seconds that an average voter spends to view an image, a background is a distraction, and you'd better remove it completely and get down to business of showing an interesting thing that you photographed.
In the first case, I believe that it *is* photographer's laziness and artistic compromise.
In the cases 2, 3, and 4 - I think that one may feel sorry for those, who shoot commercial images for pleasure, or shoot to get votes, or let themselves to be manipulated by the mass media. My opinion, of course. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 07:40:15 PM EDT.
