Nice round all🙂 great to see everyone putting in the effort to getting out the cams and taking photos for the round and some put in quite a lot of effort by the look of the results.
Good format too and well run... .
I'm no good at chess and haven't had a set out since the kids were little but the hand carved set enjoyed the party on our terrace with the rolling hills in the background..
I'm still caught up in the image of fine whiskey lingering pipe tobacco smoke and wooden pieces..
Looking forward to the next round.
Originally posted by pinkthunder1. I haven't a clue how to use photoshop, and 2. Any extensive PS'ing would have to have been declared.
E4 was confusing due to the King (and probably the uniqueness of the set) and I thought the "rainbow" effect behind the pieces was PhotoShopped.
I didn't really like the ripples, but it was either them, or a too out of focus guitar. 🙂
D
Originally posted by pinkthunderBecause I thought I'd like it. I didn't want to make a straightforward shot of a chess piece, because I thought it would look dull, so I started fooling around to see how I could use them in a different way. It's basically how I make every picture= I just walk around, try different angles and different settings untill I see something through my camera that I like. It only got a few votes, but I still like it. It reminds me of a look through a steamy window, or the look pieces might get when you're losing in a late night game, in a smoky bar, after too much to drink. But that's only what I see in it now, not what I was thinking about when I shot it.
Why are the pieces blurred? I didn't understand it, so I didn't vote for it.
Essjaynz said she didn't like the branch in timebank running. I had been thinking about that too, but I don't like to change too much. This was a staged shot, to some extent (I put the chess board on the table and arranged the chairs a bit), but I didn't want to move the table around. There was no way I could keep the branch out, and I don't like to use unusual crops. Most of my pictures aren't cropped at all (that's something I try to do when shooting the image) and when I do crop, I maintain the dimensions of a negative.
I was very happy timebank running did so well, and especially with pinkthunder and peachy telling it triggered some memories for them. Thanks for all the compliments.
And I'm curious about gatecrashers comment that being a black and white image, it misses something. What would that be? I would be very interested to hear what you think makes a good B&W image.
David
Originally posted by DdVNow that you offer that explanation, I like your pic more. Thanks for your input.
...It reminds me of a look through a steamy window, or the look pieces might get when you're losing in a late night game, in a smoky bar, after too much to drink. But that's only what I see in it now, not what I was thinking about when I shot it...
By the way, our picture-taking process is similar (with just walking around the subject, looking at it in different angles until something strikes you--without having to move much, leaving the scene how it is [I never pull weeds, break limbs, stomp down grasses/flowers, etc., but I will remove trash.])
I don't see how using color would make the image better. I't's *gotta* be black and white in my opinion.
Originally posted by DdVIf I knew what was lacking I could tell you. I've racked my brains over it, but I can't quite put my finger on it. But I still think there is something missing. My best guess, is that the sunlight on the wall detracts from the subject. The other possibility is the lack of any substantial area of pure white or pure black, which often gives b&w photography dramatic impact. On the other hand, I could be totally delusional. At the end of the day, though, it's often these intangible perceptions that sway our opinions. So whatever I feel is lacking, it is probably something quite subtle.
And I'm curious about gatecrashers comment that being a black and white image, it misses something. What would that be? I would be very interested to hear what you think makes a good B&W image.
EDIT: Looking back at the B&W photographs I really enjoyed from the earlier rounds... Anthem by Antonin, Wars Leftovers, Coming Home, Untitled, Relic... They do all have large areas of pure black or white (and often both). And I think it does make the photographs more dramatic. Maybe that is also why I also preferred Royal Perspective and Regicide.
I guess there is nothing like 'the' black and white image. I can see how you'd like pictures with large areas of black and white, but personally, I rarely appreciate them. I like pictures with large dark or large white areas, or both, but when it's pure black and/or white, I often find it boring. I like to see enough detail in the blacks and whites. Unless, as always, the subject calls for it. But since anthem for antonin as an example, I think you mean this too. Both the black and the white keys are not pure black and white. So to me, what's most important is the tonal range. I think a picture looks flat when the tonal range is inadequate.
I don't think it has anything to do with colour. Some pictures look good in colour, some in Black and white, some in both, and some pictures probably shouldn't have been taken.
Anyway, in the end, it's probably just about the image itself. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't. Too bad it's so hard to tell why. 🙂
Originally posted by DdVPhotography is incredibly subjective, as is all art, I guess.
I guess there is nothing like 'the' black and white image. I can see how you'd like pictures with large areas of black and white, but personally, I rarely appreciate them. I like pictures with large dark or large white areas, or both, but when it's pure black and/or white, I often find it boring. I like to see enough detail in the blacks and whites. Unless, as a ...[text shortened]... self. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't. Too bad it's so hard to tell why. 🙂
For the techies: I really like macro photography, but don't have the money to splash out on a decent macro lens. I've been looking at extension tubes on ebay, which I can get for about €30. The only thing is that it says that the focus and aperture need to be set manually. Now, setting the focus manually is no worries, but I haven't a clue how to set the aperture manually. Unless they mean, removing the extenstion tubes and connecting the lens directly to the camera body, setting the aperture, and then reconnecting the extension tubes??
Also, I was thinking that extended exposure may be quite exclusionary due to the requirement of having a camera capable of different exposure lengths? Should this be a round which is run in tandem with another? Who's got a camera capable of generating an entry? And what is extended exposure? 1 second plus or 1/2 or what?
D
Originally posted by RagnorakThe extended exposure round could be limiting for people. Good point. I guess it depends on our definition of "extended exposure". Most cameras can do at least one second, if not eight. Some digitals max out at thirty seconds (too much noise from the electronics). If your camera has a "bulb" setting, it can go as long as you depress the shutter. So, when "extended exposure" is the format, what's our definition gonna be? Star trails all night out in the country for 8 hours or > 1 second? ;-)
...Also, I was thinking that extended exposure may be quite exclusionary due to the requirement of having a camera capable of different exposure lengths? Should this be a round which is run in tandem with another? Who's got a camera capable of generating an entry? And what is extended exposure? 1 second plus or 1/2 or what?
D...
Originally posted by DdVYou're spot on. "Pure" is the wrong word. Perhaps what I'm strugging to describe is the sharp contrasts between light and dark which add to the dramatic effect. For example, in Relic, how much less effective would it have been had the man (with white hair) not been passing in front of a dark doorway?
I guess there is nothing like 'the' black and white image. I can see how you'd like pictures with large areas of black and white, but personally, I rarely appreciate them. I like pictures with large dark or large white areas, or both, but when it's pure black and/or white, I often find it boring. I like to see enough detail in the blacks and whites. Unless, as a ...[text shortened]... ortant is the tonal range. I think a picture looks flat when the tonal range is inadequate.
http://www.katja.klee24.de/TFC/Urban/relic.html
Originally posted by DdVThat is indeed true--A for A was an "accidental" B&W photo, not a deliberate one. I didn't desaturate the colors any, and it only appears to be B&W at first glance because of the subject matter. I did experiment with desaturating the color (what there is of it) to make a true B&W image, but I felt it lost something when I did; I think because most of the color is in the ant, which as the main subject I wanted to emphasize.
But since anthem for antonin as an example, I think you mean this too. Both the black and the white keys are not pure black and white.
I've found that if I have an image where color distracts more than it adds to the image (for example, if there are some minor elements that are more colorful than the main subject) then going to B&W usually works better. For "Sleeping Beauty" (the cat on the car hood one), I used B&W simply because color didn't add anything to the shot. If it had been a yellow cat instead of a grey one, I'd probably have left it in color.
B.W.
Originally posted by pinkthunderI guess this is the reason I find it so hard to make photographs of people or street scenes. I just need too much time, they usually left the scene before I'm able to press the button 🙂
By the way, our picture-taking process is similar (with just walking around the subject, looking at it in different angles until something strikes you--without having to move much, leaving the scene how it is [I never pull weeds, break limbs, stomp down grasses/flowers, etc., but I will remove trash.])
Originally posted by Ragnorak
Photography is incredibly subjective, as is all art, I guess.
True, apart from the technical aspects. Shadow and highlight detail show how well a picture was metered and processed, at least for analog images. Digital allows for a larger margin of error because of the post-processing possibilities, I think. But I've noticed pictures with poor shadow detail or blown highlights can really put me off, while other people like them a lot. Which probably shows that the only thing that matters is the subjective part 😉
For the techies: I really like macro photography, but don't have the money to splash out on a decent macro lens. I've been looking at extension tubes on ebay, which I can get for about €30. The only thing is that it says that the focus and aperture need to be set manually. Now, setting the focus manually is no worries, but I haven't a clue how to set the aperture manually. Unless they mean, removing the extenstion tubes and connecting the lens directly to the camera body, setting the aperture, and then reconnecting the extension tubes??
I think this just means you won't be able to use the built-in light meter, so you won't be able to determine the right aperture and shutter speed with the extension tubes attached. You won't be able to use any of your cameras (semi)automatic programs, and you'll have to dial in the settings manually. You'll have to meter the scene first, then attach the tubes. This doesn't mean you have to go through that whole process everytime you want to change aperture, just recalculate the new shutter speed that goes along with it. You should be able to change aperture with the tubes attached. Or get a seperate light meter, but in that case I think your better off with extension tubes that do allow you to use your built in light meter.
This could also all be incorrect, I don't have extension tubes 🙂
David
Originally posted by pinkthunderShould it really be defined? I wouldn't vote for a picture that clearly isn't on topic, however good it might be. I guess most people take the topic into account, so only pictures which show that extended exposure is used would get votes. And if it isn't clear straight away how extended exposure affects the image, the photographer can point it out in his notes.
So, when "extended exposure" is the format, what's our definition gonna be? Star trails all night out in the country for 8 hours or > 1 second? ;-)
David