Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2011 · Into the depths

  
 
JJuLLiAAn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Into the depths


This is an image of a small, mabye 4mm long jumping spider on a leaf looking off the edge.z





Nov 07, 2011 at 07:51 PM
brockwhittaker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Into the depths


I love it. The in focus leg just kind of makes it appear to reach out of the photograph, (which scares the crap out of me :P) How close were you to the Spider?


Nov 08, 2011 at 07:47 AM
JJuLLiAAn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Into the depths


The end of the lens was around 2"-3" away. My camera was around, mabye 11" from the spider.


Nov 08, 2011 at 01:02 PM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Into the depths


Interesting shot with an abstract quality because of the DOF and long leaf's edge.
Kind of a mysterious reversed Z shape on the right. I cant decide if it distracts or adds interest. But either way, I'd consider cropping half or so of the bottom and see what you think. I think it might pull the eye across the frame more dynamically, implying greater motion.
Scott



Nov 18, 2011 at 09:44 PM
JJuLLiAAn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Into the depths


I looked at it and with the Z taken out it really doesn't look very good. So here is the image just cropped a little bit.



Nov 21, 2011 at 09:52 PM
cgardner
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Into the depths


Part of the visual impact of bug shots is seeing them larger than life. The same dynamic works in movies or a series of still photos. As the crop narrows the viewer get the impression of being pulled in closer to the actions.

I cropped in tight, then slowly expanded and rotated the frame. I then just sampled and painted in the missing corners — very easy to do on this image — and applied some selective sharpening...

http://super.nova.org/EDITS/Spider.jpg

Splitting the frame in half on the diagonal creates a ying/yang balance dynamic that is missing in your original. The more horizontal line in your original has more of a static, stopped in place vibe. I opted to leave the mark of Zorro in the shot as a way to pull the eye down the diagonal imaging the spider's path. Here's a tighter crop...
http://super.nova.org/EDITS/Spider2.jpg

The rule is the top color taken a bit lighter with color picker and the mat the lower one taken a bit darker.



Nov 22, 2011 at 01:26 PM
JJuLLiAAn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Into the depths


I actually don't like to change images that much, I am fine with cropping some and mabye a little bit of sharping, but to change the angle is kind of a little bit to much for me.


Nov 22, 2011 at 08:56 PM
cgardner
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Into the depths


Leaves and spiders appear at odd angles naturally.

There is no rule you can't tilt a camera off level with the horizon when taking a shot if necessary to improve composition. If there is no horizon or vertical content in the background like trees or posts to make the tilt seem unnatural how will the viewer know the spider wasn't at that angle when taking the shot? They won't.

So if that's the way you feel, which is valid, my C&C would be that you made poor composition choices at capture and it would have been improved by tilting the camera to put the strong leading / dividing line on the diagonal — similar to my crop

As for sharpening? Digital cameras have anti-aliasing filters to break up the stair-step pattern the sensor would otherwise create on angled lines in images. Look through a screen door and you'll get an understanding of what it does to the image.

If your goal is to show the viewer what you, and they, would see by eye in person when looking at the spider or anything else you capture you need to sharpen just to reverse the un-sharpening caused by the AA filter.

The perceptual effect of blurring 90% of the bug — an inherent problem with macro — is telling the viewers brain that it is less important because that's how the brain and eyes work in person, focusing on the center 2° and mentally tuning out the rest. The eyes see everything, but only detail in the center 2° with the brain filtering out the rest. When you blur / sharpen in a photo you send a subliminal clue what you the author think is important. So selectively sharpening / blurring from the baseline your camera was able to capture can be an effective way to edit the story the photo tells.

All things considered it would have been far more interesting had the entire spider been in focus. If that where the case in editing you would have the option to direct the focus to the head vs the back in a way that the final result looks more "normal" which in a shot like that would be to have the back a bit less sharp to convey the illusion of 3D depth, but not so unsharp that you couldn't see the structure.

What you see and what the camera capture are different. Both are usual only represent the full creative potential of any situation. Art, I'm told by people who think themselves artists, is seeing and capturing this in the camera....

http://super.nova.org/TP/GearsOrg.jpg

... because you visualize this more creative, artistic image in your mind...

http://super.nova.org/TP/Gears.jpg

If you are a real artist you just paint it that way. If you are photographer getting from one to the other is often a matter of knowing what is possible "in the darkroom".








Nov 23, 2011 at 10:23 AM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Into the depths


JJuLLiAAn wrote:
I actually don't like to change images that much, I am fine with cropping some and mabye a little bit of sharping, but to change the angle is kind of a little bit to much for me.

Followed by:
cgardner wrote:
So if that's the way you feel, which is valid, my C&C would be that you made poor composition choices at capture and it would have been improved by tilting the camera to put the strong leading / dividing line on the diagonal — similar to my crop



Actually, I like either crop by the OP. Perhaps the second is slightly stronger. The use of negative space helped convey to me how small this little guy is. Orientation looks fine to me and I presume that's what the creator of this photograph saw.



Nov 23, 2011 at 12:33 PM
cgardner
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Into the depths


For the hard of understanding....

I respect the OP's viewpoint— something you Doug have problems with — but had it been my shot I would have had different goals and cropped it differently when shooting, because my goals for the overall look of the composition would be different.

What appealed to me more than the mostly OOF spider was the unusual colors and how if placed on the diagonal created the ying/yang balance I mentioned. Also since the title was "Into the depths" implying rapid descent, not "Spider Sauntering Sideways" the steeper angle seemed a more logical way to convey the thought visually.

Isn't that the point of C&C to offer alternatives to consider at capture as well as editing? This forum tends to focus more on fixing after the fact than considering how to could have been done differently at capture, which I find is better understood by cropping / rotating, etc.



Nov 23, 2011 at 12:46 PM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Into the depths


cgardner wrote:
For the hard of understanding....


cgardner wrote:
...had it been my shot...

Isn't that the point of C&C to offer alternatives to consider at capture as well as editing? This forum tends to focus more on fixing after the fact than considering how to could have been done differently at capture, which I find is better understood by cropping / rotating, etc.

That brings up some interesting questions. I also think it points out we have different philosophies.

I'm more interested in helping those who ask for C&C refine their vision, not have it conform to mine. If I see things significantly different, I just go take my own photograph. There's certainly plenty of spiders in my yard!

I guess I got my way of thinking from the professionals who critiqued my work. Their aim was the same, to help me refine, not to conform to their way.

I think there's a point where the manipulation is so extreme that the original photographer's style or vision is lost, it's no longer their photograph. In this instance, it seems the OP agrees.



Nov 23, 2011 at 02:27 PM
cgardner
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Into the depths


I'm certain you and I have differences Doug. I had different teachers and work experience so it is not surprising our advice might differ.

But the biggest difference is I don't editorialize about your advice, background, mentors in a derogatory manner, or go trolling after you post your advice. I offer suggestions based on how I have or would solve the problem. If they post a photo seeking critique the only input I can give is how I might approach the same problem differently sometimes editing, sometimes posting a similar photo I have taken, or one as I did here using one that illustrates the point I am making.

I have a far more extensive technical background than most so when it comes to topics like whether or not to sharpen an image I think it useful to explain how the capture process degrades and image and differs from what is seen by eye in terms of detail and how it can be remedied. I offer full service advice not just Art Center platitudes about just trying stuff until it feels right. What you don't seem to understand is that EVERYONE shoots until it feels "right" for them personally even without an art school education. But some also like to understand why it worked, or not, and what if anything could be done better next time.

I got my way of thinking from the professionals who critiqued my work also. I took a portfolio of matted 11x14 zone system prints on interviews. 10 different studios looked at them made very few comments and offered no job. I took them to Monte Zucker, who had advertised in the paper for an apprentice/assistant. He took the time to critique each one in detail with a set of cropping guides. Some he turned upside down and spun around so I could better understand what in terms of tone and contrast was the main attraction in the photo. He did that with every one. On the way home I stopped at a store and bought a mat knife and some mat board. I made a set of L shaped crop guides like he had used and tried to remember all his advice. Then hesitating for what seemed like an hour over the prints I had no way of replacing I made the first cut. By the time I was done there was mat board and print paper all over the floor and my portfolio was much smaller and lighter — and far better thanks to the editing of the extraneous distractions.

I called Monte and told him what I'd done, he invited me back for a look and he hired me. He hired me not because the photos where that great, but because I demonstrated he wouldn't be wasting his time training me. But to my credit, since you don't give me any this one in my portfolio did win top honors and Most Creative award the State PPofA competition the next year, judged by the guest speaker Jay Maisel, who obviously liked it — he handed me the award — but also gave me some constructive suggestions how it could be improved..

http://super.nova.org/TP/BLKPwr.jpg

I learned in two years what it took to be a success in the business from someone who was a success in the business. That's just as valid a way to learn to make a living running a business as going to an art school. Most of the photograph stuff I already knew, it was the insights into sales, marketing and dealing with people which were the most valuable and lasting lessons for me. Monte in addition to shooting weddings taught other pros his style, which given the size of is classes and the amount the students paid seemed to be valid technique to me. I try to simplify concepts and teach in large part because he was a role model. Writing also. He wrote a monthly column in the PPofA magazine. My first every published article was in the same magazine in 1975, about my apprenticeship experience. I have no doubt had I worked for Adams, Ritts or some other famous photographer I would have been influenced by their teaching also, but feel fortunate for the tutelage I received, getting paid while doing. That's was even better than the free advice I dispense

I have little doubt these lessons I learned were different from yours and others here, which is why our approaches to giving advice differs. But each is as valid as the next because each works for us. I give the reader credit for the curiosity to try all advice given and see what works for them without the need for third party editorials where your advice is predicated on the fact someone else's approach is misguided.

I view taking a photo more as an interesting problem to solve with the goal being to create a desired reaction. The creative part for me is solving the problem. That's why work was so much fun and rewarding — all I did most days is solve problems. The problem I saw in this shot was an OOF spider lost in too much negative space. I prefaced my remarks with "Part of the visual impact of bug shots is seeing them larger than life. " and my advice was based on that premise.

Your take on the same photo was "The use of negative space helped convey to me how small this little guy is." I shared that view about macro bug shots my advice would probably be similar to yours.

What we have in common is that we both liked the negative space, you because it was a big space making a bug look small — a normal point of view — and I because the colors were very unusual which I felt added a creative and artistic element not seem in most bug shots.

Big scary, colorful, creative, heading steeply into the depths worked for me in this one — YMMV.

As for refining vison, that's exactly what I thought I was doing when suggest that the OP look beyond what the camera captures to pre-visualize what the final result, after editing can be. The only manipulation I did was cropping and rotating and a bit of sharpening to replace what the AA filter had mangled.

As for spiders in the yard.... I'll show you mine your if you show me yours....
http://super.nova.org/TP/InsectSpider.jpg
http://super.nova.org/TP/InsectFly.jpg
http://super.nova.org/TP/InsectMantis.jpg
http://super.nova.org/TP/InsectWasp.jpg
... oh yeah, I forgot you don't display your work... to pure and artistic to survive the light of day I guess. Too bad, given that its a visual medium its easier to learn from examples.








Nov 23, 2011 at 03:31 PM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.