Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
Posts: 6447
Joined: Jul. 6 2003
From: England, living in Italy
my photo of the week 70 - London, wi...
I'll be honest, this is in my personal top 10 shots. But I want your opinion. It's the natural lighting at Notting Hill Gate Tube station and the shallow depth of field (at f2) to pull our dog into focus, with the Sony RX1R and Zeiss 35mm, that lives up to my aspiration when I bought this very expensive camera. It was a grab shot, no posing. Anyway, you decide.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
RE: my photo of the week 70 - London... (in reply to Escribano)
Nice pic, in my opinion the depth of field is slightly on the shallow side though. I like the shallow depth of field in a lot of pics, but this one I think the other way would be better.
Posts: 6447
Joined: Jul. 6 2003
From: England, living in Italy
RE: my photo of the week 70 - London... (in reply to n85ae)
Thanks Jeff,
You may be right when it's a person slightly out of the DOF, as they draw the eye and probably should be more out of focus, which is tricky. But I still like this one.
RE: my photo of the week 70 - London... (in reply to Escribano)
I like it too. But to be critical on a high level (and between friends who appreciate constructive sincerety), I agree with Jeff on this.
After getting my first prime glass, I was going wild on DOF. Sometimes so much even that the nose tips of portrait folks would already be in the blured sphere. Really.
Now I try capturing the whole object. And it is a fun challenge to get the DOF exactly around it / so to say not an inch deeper or shallower. Naturally, this way you will have a more subtle buket, but still nice enough with a fine lens.
Also picky on high level would be the detection of a tad of noise in the shadow. However, this could be due to the cranked screen of the laptop I am watching with here in bright day light. (The colors however are very nice; and I should be seeing them as vastly original, as I calibrate my screens.) -
BTW, recently there was a vernissage of several joined German photographers who were presenting only random crops. Visitors had to take those crops with their smart phones or tablets and then find the whole of the picture in the internet.
The purpose was that this way people would realize how the colors, contrast and light settings on their devices would differ from what the artist had actually produced. The event was meant as a protest against the issue of transfering digital images, which is the fact that more than 99 % of screens are not calibrated. (Sometimes not even professional print venues, so that you get your prints back in strange conditions.)
From there as a hint to everyone with a faible for graphics: Even just calibrating manually helps a lot if you know how to do that. Test cards and instructions can be found on the internet. -
Hope you don´t mind my OT, Simon. Again, very moody picture with great light conditions.
RE: my photo of the week 70 - London... (in reply to Escribano)
Having just come over your suggestion, Paul, it spontaneously seemed as if it might be no good idea / comming too close to the dogs paws if retaining format / ruining proportions.
But simulating your idea by quickly holding two sheets of paper over the LCD-monitor, showed that you could be right.
Cutting off the left side only just to where the sign ends, leaving a slim line of the walls edge (as emphasing column for depth) and reducing the bottom line in corresponding proportion, leaves the composition intact, and actually improves the overall image remarkably, so it seems.
Curious to see what the chief constructor says.
Ruphus
PS: Looked at it again. Only a pity that the dogs shadow will be cut through.
RE: my photo of the week 70 - London... (in reply to Escribano)
Your wife and your photo are lovely, and that adorable dog looks like a B. Hepworth that has sprouted legs.
What really grabs me is the lightest light against the darkest dark, the glorious light on the dog against the deep shadow. Psychologically, the woman looking at you and then wondering what the dog is looking at.
Don't touch this photo, it's magic. Go with your instinct. May you shoot a thousand more.
Posts: 6447
Joined: Jul. 6 2003
From: England, living in Italy
RE: my photo of the week 70 - London... (in reply to estebanana)
quote:
What really grabs me is the lightest light against the darkest dark, the glorious light on the dog against the deep shadow. Psychologically, the woman looking at you and then wondering what the dog is looking at.
You read this photo very well, Stephen. Cropping into the dog's shadow to hide the Tube sign would ruin it.
Good call on linking the poster with the sculpturing light. I tried to push the wife out of focus even more, but it is still one of the best urban portraits I have taken.
Thanks for all your kind comments, they mean a lot. I'll be on a photo shoot at Lake Lugano next week for a magazine, so watch out for some landscapes.
Here's another take on the same theme. Diagonals and the play of light, but with more predictable shadows in this one. Shame I couldn't get the whole dog shadow in this one, but I was walking behind to catch up at the same time.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Posts: 1770
Joined: Jul. 11 2003
From: The Netherlands
RE: my photo of the week 70 - London... (in reply to Escribano)
Next picture is nice too, because of the shadow the light jumps out. You wonder where the light comes from. Secundary the to body's kinda synchrone the feet and backleggs are a team.
RE: my photo of the week 70 - London... (in reply to Escribano)
quote:
You read this photo very well, Stephen. Cropping into the dog's shadow to hide the Tube sign would ruin it.
Good call on linking the poster with the sculpturing light. I tried to push the wife out of focus even more, but it is still one of the best urban portraits I have taken.
Thanks for all your kind comments, they mean a lot. I'll be on a photo shoot at Lake Lugano next week for a magazine, so watch out for some landscapes.
Here's another take on the same theme. Diagonals and the play of light, but with more predictable shadows in this one. Shame I couldn't get the whole dog shadow in this one, but I was walking behind to catch up at the same time.
Simon, with your photos I don't ponder compositional possibilities, like what if he had done this or that in framing. Your instincts and sense for what it right as a composition are very strong to me. I honestly don't find myself second guessing that.
The portrait is tricky subject, and sometimes the objects surrounding a person tell as much or more about them as the person themselves. And also the feeling the light gives shades how we see the person. The dog is key to how we ( I at least) feel about the woman. The dog tells all about her choices in life, her status, what she cares about, how she wants to be anonymous in public. Many other things. And the light on the dog is clear and sculptural, that also describes the woman's interior. The fragility and suppleness of the dogs legs tell me a lot about how delicate the woman's interior can be. The arch of the dogs neck, all this feeds back into how I see the person and the dog obviously.
So if the composition were weak or I was mentally fussing with it, I would not go farther in and begin to make the extra associations between person/light/dog. Like I said, I don't feel the compulsion to mentally fuss with your compositions.
So many objects I think on the outside in photos comment on the subjects ( persons) interior. In your photos like this you are making both conscious and unconscious choices that work. The only thing I would say is try to work with those choices of objects with person-subject-object in an instinctual way like you have been, but also without forcing or trying too hard also make conscious choices about what objects you include or leave out. What kinds of objects are you attracted to and how do they tell stories about your person subject?
Sometimes you hit on these things by luck and unconscious looking, but it's good to notice this stuff a little bit and seek out more. But you have to stop that when it begins to feel like going to church, if you know what I mean.
Some of the best photos I've seen of yours are these person with object formats, it's a 'thing' now.
_______
On the second photo, sometimes a photo like that can be paired with another one from the same moment to make a diptych. The two photos can tell stories a few seconds apart and support each other to make a third reality. Like what happened twenty feet farther down the side walk compared to that photo. Or what about paring that photo with a close up of an object in the street. Two photos can be effective at showing the passing of time, how can time be used to tell a portrait story about the person?
Printable Version
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread