| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/22/2015 11:00:40 AM · #1 |
Okay....
 MichaelC commented on my Inside/Indoors image and his comment piqued me. There has been at least one ongoing comments thread at all times on DPC since Columbus discovered Fort Lauderdale, so we thought maybe we could go into the discussion in public to see if the exchange, and differing perspectives might spark some interest.
Mike is from Down Under, home of subtlety, and I'm one of those oh-so-refined Americans, so we should be able to get something out of this and maybe some others, too.
Okay.....the image: 
Mike's comment:A great scene but would like to have seen the viewers eye focused more on the subject through lighting, DoF, etc.
I basically am happy with the image the way it is, and some of you know that what I always hope for in the way of a comment is the impression, or lack thereof, that you get when you view my offering.
I initially all but dismissed the comment as the image *WAS* as I'd intended, but the more I looked, the more I wanted to know what Mike meant......especially the etc. part! LOL!!!
I contacted him and asked him if he would be willing to go back and forth with me in a thread to see where it goes.
He graciously agreed, reminded me that it may be a slow moving thread as we're 14 hours apart, but otherwise, could be fun!
So let's see what we can come up with, and maybe others can & will chime in and even host images that they've toyed with expanding on with a discussion.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2015 12:02:56 PM · #2 |
| My take is that you've got a big scene with lots of things in it and it becomes difficult to understand what it is you want us to really SEE in the image. We can guess, but is the bike the subject? The graffiti? The broken down structure? I think what Mike's suggesting is that with a different perspective and perhaps a bigger aperture and some focused lighting you could have isolated the subject (the bike?) while de-emphasizing the parts of the shot that are more mood than subject. I agree. |
|
|
|
10/22/2015 12:21:28 PM · #3 |
I agree. When I first viewed it, my eyes went through the image... once... then... twice... searching for a place to rest. There is no clear subject.
Even a slight bit of isolation through DOF would have given the subject more emphasis... IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. :D
|
|
|
|
10/22/2015 12:30:10 PM · #4 |
Disclaimer: I really liked the image, thought it was well executed and fit the challenge. I gave it a 7.
OK, now to the discussion... I agree that the placement of the bike in shadow deemphasizes what should be a prominent part of the composition. Given the natural lighting available, there doesn't really seem to be a readily available placement that would have been better lit. An alternative would have been to provide additional illumination to provide some gentle fill on the bike, either through a strobe or a reflector. Even without additional illumination, a more forward placement of the bike would have helped to draw the eye to it.
I do not agree that decreasing the DoF bu using a larger aperture would necessarily have been of benefit. that would have made it a completely different shot, and reduced/eliminated the key component of the detail in the environment. Not saying it's not a valid approach, just a completely different statement.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2015 12:46:10 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
My take is that you've got a big scene with lots of things in it and it becomes difficult to understand what it is you want us to really SEE in the image. |
Well....I was trying to show that the scene, though looking like it could have simply been a wall covered with graffiti, was in fact the inside of a building. The open expanse was my trongue-in-cheek, title driven view that it wasn't much of an "Inside".
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
We can guess, but is the bike the subject? The graffiti? The broken down structure? |
Yes! To my POV, it was all part of the whole.
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
I think what Mike's suggesting is that with a different perspective and perhaps a bigger aperture and some focused lighting you could have isolated the subject (the bike?) while de-emphasizing the parts of the shot that are more mood than subject. I agree. |
Okay.....it was shot at f4.2, that particular lens opening won't go larger than f3.5. I'm at a loss to understand what specifically a different aperture would have done here. A little help?
The lighting.....I was two hours from home in an abandoned building. In your opinion, should I have used fill flash? I was prolly 25 feet from the bike & wall, would my on-camera have done anything? Or are you talking about burning down some of the outside area? I don't have much flash stuff......I keep buying cameras with better low light performance 'cause I suck at flash.
Just FWIW......with the topic being Inside/Indoors, what *IS* the subject if, especially in this instance, the whole scene isn't?
Perspective.......I was roughly at the middle of the opposite wall where the bike was......should I have moved right/left, forward at the same time?
I was prolly a little right of center as I wanted to ensure I got a slice of the doorway to the outside in front of the bike.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2015 12:50:48 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Lydia:
I agree. When I first viewed it, my eyes went through the image... once... then... twice... searching for a place to rest. There is no clear subject. |
I guess to a certain extent, I succeed in conveying my whole scene as subject then. Is that a bad thing technically? Does there have to be a specific subject when a topic is kind of general?
Maybe my concept was weak, but do you know what I mean? Sometimes the scene is the subject, right?
Originally posted by Lydia:
Even a slight bit of isolation through DOF would have given the subject more emphasis... |
Okay......can you elaborate on that so I know what you mean?
Originally posted by Lydia:
IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. :D |
No need for qualifiers, my friend, we've exchanged many ideas over the years. I welcome your views.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2015 01:01:30 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Disclaimer: I really liked the image, thought it was well executed and fit the challenge. I gave it a 7. |
Thanx! This is what I was hoping for......varied responses.
Originally posted by kirbic:
OK, now to the discussion... I agree that the placement of the bike in shadow deemphasizes what should be a prominent part of the composition. |
I actually toyed with the idea of dodging the bike a little, but wasn't sure that was a desirable thing. I felt that since there was enough detail in the frame rails, side case, and body parts that the bike was prominent enough. Anything more would have accentuated the bike and at the time, I wasn't going for that.
Originally posted by kirbic:
Given the natural lighting available, there doesn't really seem to be a readily available placement that would have been better lit. |
Yah, that's for sure! That building looked much brighter in person.....I took a bunch of shots only to have pushed up the exposure compensation a tick to get a run of images I liked. That caused me to have some pretty hot windows at the back.
Originally posted by kirbic:
An alternative would have been to provide additional illumination to provide some gentle fill on the bike, either through a strobe or a reflector. Even without additional illumination, a more forward placement of the bike would have helped to draw the eye to it. |
Yes or No, people......should the bike have been more prominent to convey the challenge topic of Inside/Indoors? Or is that idea more photographically driven due to the formal, standard composition that should have a specific subject?
Originally posted by kirbic:
I do not agree that decreasing the DoF bu using a larger aperture would necessarily have been of benefit. that would have made it a completely different shot, and reduced/eliminated the key component of the detail in the environment. Not saying it's not a valid approach, just a completely different statement. |
I'm at a loss.....what makes y'all think this was shot with a small(er) aperture? I'm assuming that f4.2 is considered a fairly large aperture.
Message edited by author 2015-10-22 15:59:25.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2015 01:05:30 PM · #8 |
 marnet left this comment:
I like the shine on the bike but I really don't know what it is doing there. The link between the bike and the location is rather tenuous. I don't see any problem with the basic technicals except the composition feels a bit unbalanced by including a lot of the wall on the right.
Is the bike even relevant if what I was really trying to convey was this scene?
Boy, I hate it when a thought like that fires through the ol' grey matter! LOL!!!
Good point, dammit!
ETA: Pic, No Bike! 
Maybe???
Message edited by author 2015-10-22 13:13:54.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2015 01:15:51 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Lydia:
I agree. When I first viewed it, my eyes went through the image... once... then... twice... searching for a place to rest. There is no clear subject. |
I guess to a certain extent, I succeed in conveying my whole scene as subject then. Is that a bad thing technically? Does there have to be a specific subject when a topic is kind of general?
Maybe my concept was weak, but do you know what I mean? Sometimes the scene is the subject, right?
Sometimes the scene IS the subject... but even with... uhhh... say... a landscape, there's a tree or something that dominates the landscape a bit... and the eye can rest on that.
An example:  This scene is the subject... but there are places for the eyes to rest as they move through the scene... the fog is there... and it's part of the scene... but the eyes skim over it to the next group of buildings, where the eyes rest until they move through the fog to the next buildings.
In yours, there is so MUCH going on... that it's hard to rest anywhere. Does that make any sense? If the bike weren't there, I think the scene would be better... because the blank floor space would emphasize the building more.
In this image:  It's all in focus and without the man's face, it would just be a bunch of busyness and the eye would have no place to rest... they would just keep going around and a around searching for "the subject". But, WITH the face... the other stuff turns into the "fog" of the first example image and the eyes skim over it (at least on the second go 'round).
Originally posted by Lydia:
Even a slight bit of isolation through DOF would have given the subject more emphasis... |
Okay......can you elaborate on that so I know what you mean?
For instance in this image,  the entire scene is the subject and yet, my eyes can stop when they get to the letters on the left building. It's because the depth of field highlights them. They are in focus just a bit more than the background.
Originally posted by Lydia:
IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. :D
|
No need for qualifiers, my friend, we've exchanged many ideas over the years. I welcome your views. |
*grin* Yay!! |
|
|
|
10/22/2015 01:16:53 PM · #10 |
| Given that the "problem" we're dealing with is bike-in-ruin and this particular time of day etc, what I'D have done is move the bike forward into the dappled light closer to the foreground, and let the bike be a more dominant part of the composition. As it is, there's a disconnect others have noted, there seems to be no REASON for the bike to be there. Also, FWIW, the image seems oversharpened to me... |
|
|
|
10/22/2015 01:20:27 PM · #11 |
OH! I forgot to say that I LIKE the image... I gave it a 7 during voting.
I just think it could have been better... and... you did ask. :D
|
|
|
|
10/22/2015 02:39:07 PM · #12 |
I like the color and lighting. The bike looks pretty sweet and it almost feels like this should be in a catalog for the bike manufacturer along with beauty shots on the road with blurred backgrounds =)
I think in that context it would make more sense.
Since the context (challenge) was Inside/Indoors, you took something that we expect to see outside and put it inside, which conceptually sounds great, but that not sure if that is the message that was received or not. Taking the bike out of the shot would make it less interesting, but score wise, I think the result would be similar - since it would meet the challenge a little better IMHO but have less interest as far as subject matter.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2015 02:50:03 PM · #13 |
I am in two minds about writing, but I did not mark well your shot and since you want to know some opinions, here it is:. my first instinct was that this image is way too evenly processed and with too much sharpening.
The place has a lot of potential to be further photographed but the curse of saturation and sharpening makes me think of the benefits of more minimal editing challenges in spite of the fact that I prefer advance editing.
As a side note, I'd like to leave a note why I mark an image with 5 or 4 but I got mixed reactions. It's great to stand by your photograph but then let's not ask insistently for more comments if we cannot take someone else's opinion. |
|
|
|
10/22/2015 03:13:42 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
My take is that you've got a big scene with lots of things in it and it becomes difficult to understand what it is you want us to really SEE in the image. |
Well....I was trying to show that the scene, though looking like it could have simply been a wall covered with graffiti, was in fact the inside of a building. The open expanse was my trongue-in-cheek, title driven view that it wasn't much of an "Inside".
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
We can guess, but is the bike the subject? The graffiti? The broken down structure? |
Yes! To my POV, it was all part of the whole.
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
I think what Mike's suggesting is that with a different perspective and perhaps a bigger aperture and some focused lighting you could have isolated the subject (the bike?) while de-emphasizing the parts of the shot that are more mood than subject. I agree. |
Okay.....it was shot at f4.2, that particular lens opening won't go larger than f3.5. I'm at a loss to understand what specifically a different aperture would have done here. A little help?
The lighting.....I was two hours from home in an abandoned building. In your opinion, should I have used fill flash? I was prolly 25 feet from the bike & wall, would my on-camera have done anything? Or are you talking about burning down some of the outside area? I don't have much flash stuff......I keep buying cameras with better low light performance 'cause I suck at flash.
Just FWIW......with the topic being Inside/Indoors, what *IS* the subject if, especially in this instance, the whole scene isn't?
Perspective.......I was roughly at the middle of the opposite wall where the bike was......should I have moved right/left, forward at the same time?
I was prolly a little right of center as I wanted to ensure I got a slice of the doorway to the outside in front of the bike. |
I'm not necessarily saying you should have used anything, I'm simply responding to your question regarding the comment. I understand the limitations of a situation, but that doesn't mean that what wasn't possible on location couldn't be compensated for in post.
 |
|
|
|
10/22/2015 03:52:19 PM · #15 |
| If only you lot could all image rather than talk, the world would be a better place. |
|
|
|
10/22/2015 03:54:22 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
I'm not necessarily saying you should have used anything, I'm simply responding to your question regarding the comment. I understand the limitations of a situation, but that doesn't mean that what wasn't possible on location couldn't be compensated for in post. |
That's how it seemed to me.
I am just at a loss as to what techniques one might use and how that might affect the end result.
I just listed the limitations for context.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2015 04:07:54 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
I am in two minds about writing, but I did not mark well your shot and since you want to know some opinions, here it is:. my first instinct was that this image is way too evenly processed and with too much sharpening. |
What do you mean by evenly processed? I don't understand that term. Yah.....I do get out of hand sometimes with the sharpening. I kond of left it the way it was to bring up the grunge/grain effect.
Originally posted by mariuca:
The place has a lot of potential to be further photographed but the curse of saturation and sharpening makes me think of the benefits of more minimal editing challenges in spite of the fact that I prefer advance editing. |
I don't exactly understand what you're saying here. You mean you can't tell that the place has interest due to my processing?
Originally posted by mariuca:
As a side note, I'd like to leave a note why I mark an image with 5 or 4 but I got mixed reactions. It's great to stand by your photograph but then let's not ask insistently for more comments if we cannot take someone else's opinion. |
You've really lost me here. I've proposed dissection and discussion on an image I've thrown out to hopefully have what seems to being going on here.....discussion. Are you speaking to me with this? How have I been insistent? IMO anyone's welcome to take whatever perspective, voice an opinion, suggest fix/techniques/offer critique, or just tell me what they think. I would like also to query those who respond so that I'm clear as to their ideas and thoughts. It's been most interesting to me. How did you arrive at the conclusion that I cannot take someone's opinion?
|
|
|
|
10/22/2015 04:10:03 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Lydia:
OH! I forgot to say that I LIKE the image... I gave it a 7 during voting. |
Hey, thanks! You shouldn't have! (Apparently!) LOL!!!
Originally posted by Lydia:
I just think it could have been better... and... you did ask. :D |
Yes, and your examples and explanation make perfect sense. Thank you, you've been MOST helpful!
|
|
|
|
10/22/2015 04:14:44 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by tate:
I like the color and lighting. The bike looks pretty sweet and it almost feels like this should be in a catalog for the bike manufacturer along with beauty shots on the road with blurred backgrounds =)
I think in that context it would make more sense. |
Oddly, the guys in the Triumph dealer where I work thought so, too! Go figure! LOL!!!
Originally posted by tate:
Since the context (challenge) was Inside/Indoors, you took something that we expect to see outside and put it inside, which conceptually sounds great, but that not sure if that is the message that was received or not. |
I like to try to think outside the box. Unfortunately, sometimes that fails.....LOL!!!
Originally posted by tate:
Taking the bike out of the shot would make it less interesting, but score wise, I think the result would be similar - since it would meet the challenge a little better IMHO but have less interest as far as subject matter. |
In retrospect, because of what the scene really needs to have carried the concept off.....I think I might have been better off exploring the possibilities for just having the building's interior for the challenge.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2015 04:18:33 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Given that the "problem" we're dealing with is bike-in-ruin and this particular time of day etc, what I'D have done is move the bike forward into the dappled light closer to the foreground, and let the bike be a more dominant part of the composition. As it is, there's a disconnect others have noted, there seems to be no REASON for the bike to be there. Also, FWIW, the image seems oversharpened to me... |
I actually tried to find a spot to get that light more onto the bike. As you can see, there was some interesting dappling going on, but I couldn't get enough onto the bike and have the bike lit well. The dappling was then on the bike, and that seriously did NOT work.
What I saw in my head and what I ended up with were different, but I still like the image. I do understand its weak points better.
Yeah, yeah.......get my hands off that sharpening tool! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
10/22/2015 04:19:55 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Tiny:
If only you lot could all image rather than talk, the world would be a better place. |
A picture's worth a thousand words, right?
This one apparently only 597 , though! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
10/22/2015 04:31:01 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
I'm not necessarily saying you should have used anything, I'm simply responding to your question regarding the comment. I understand the limitations of a situation, but that doesn't mean that what wasn't possible on location couldn't be compensated for in post. |
That's how it seemed to me.
I am just at a loss as to what techniques one might use and how that might affect the end result.
I just listed the limitations for context. |
The context that's really needed is was this shot planned in advance (you knew where you were going and what you were going to shoot when you got there) or was it a result of happenstance?
If the latter then you do what you can with what you have, and if that's a D810 and a 28-300mm then we go with that. What I see as your primary issue is that the bike is definitely too dark, the room the bike is in is darker than I'd want it, and the alcove behind it is the only thing I consider exposed properly. The only technique I can offer while shooting would be to shoot a bracketed set of exposures and do HDR in post. Fill-in flash would work if you had an off-camera flash with a diffuser sufficient enough to cover the entire room, or depending on the ceiling you may have been able to bounce it - something to even the lighting. Given the dynamic range of the camera you could probably have gotten away with a single RAW exposure and used tools in post to better balance the light so that the bike wasn't buried in the shadows. Something as simple as duplicating the image as a second layer, brightening the exposure and then use a layer mask to pull in the lighter areas from the shot you have. The bright spots on the floor are distracting right in front of the bike, so I might have moved the bike to the right a bit more. A bracketed series of shots would allow you to tone those spots down a bit as well, giving you some floor details instead of blown out highlights.
Now, if you were planning ahead I would have brought a couple off camera flashes, one to light the bike and one to fill in the room with either a diffuser or an umbrella. I may have moved the bike further right and shot from further to the left, taking out the doorway leading outside but leaving the window in the shot. Not being there I don't know how practical this arrangement is, but assuming the interior was empty and you could set up anywhere... |
|
|
|
10/22/2015 06:11:02 PM · #23 |
Clarifications, for what;s worth:
1. NikonJeb
What do you mean by evenly processed? I don't understand that term.
Processed in the same manner and with equal importance on every part of the image. In your case, saturation and sharpness. There are plenty of pictures that can be called evenly processed where this is a quality, but not when it comes to excessive saturation and sharpness
2. NikonJeb
I don't exactly understand what you're saying here. You mean you can't tell that the place has interest due to my processing?
I repeat, the place has a lot of potential to be photographed again. Your image was not just arresting
3. It was a side note referring to other people, clearly not you if I was mentioning the hurt feelings that a comment produces to others. You asked for comments, you got them and you do pay attention and try to understand each point of view.
Seems like I was not the only one mentioning the saturation and sharpness.
That's all. |
|
|
|
10/22/2015 07:02:09 PM · #24 |
I think I'd have positioned the bike in the "vee" to the right, where the darker parts of the floor converge, in front of the bricks. There its lines would invite direct comparison with the bold outline letters above, whereas now they are more in competition for ones attention; my eyes want to jump back and forth between them instead of following a path through the image.
I think that placement would also look more like it was poised to make an escape through the opening opposite, giving it a feeling of potential dyanamism (maybe clone-out the kickstand?); now the bike's "just parked there." |
|
|
|
10/22/2015 07:26:19 PM · #25 |
| FWIW 8 from me - not one of my ribbon choices but close. I like it, but then I like busy more than most people seem to. It meets the challenge and there is some interest in finding a flash bike in a dilapidated (yet picturesque) setting. I feel that the lighting quirks just are a natural part of the scene - they say something. |
|
