At Risk Of Embarrasing Myself

[Derrel]

I'm really new so I only know what I like. I think you took some nice shots. I only have a comment on one of them. #3 keeps grabbing me and then disappointing me. It's probably just me. I want to focus on the swan but I keep being drawn to the blue spot to the NW of the swans head. I'm being drawn into the background and leaving the swan behind. Then I get annoyed at myself because I want to look at the swan but that spot keeps distracting me. But again, probably just me.

No, it's NOT "just you". There is an old adage that I often repeat: Light advances, dark recedes. The swan, being light, "advances", or jumps out to the eye. The light blue zone inside the darker storm drain area "advances" as well...it's a hard-wired thing in the human brain. In one way, it's a useful thing; I think the blue might be coming from a second grating that dumps in; it looks like shadowed light, coming in from street level. WHatever the cause, it DOES draw the eye of viewers, all of them, for at least some portion of the viewing time. And, it serves to draw the eye back to the dark zone, over and over upon extended viewing time. And, in this case, I think that's kind of a good thing. The drainage system is particular to that location; this shot is a very "real" photo. It contrasts the elegant and yet ungainly swan, versus the storm water drain system, which is kind of, shall we say "icky".

 

[sashbar]

I'm really new so I only know what I like. I think you took some nice shots. I only have a comment on one of them. #3 keeps grabbing me and then disappointing me. It's probably just me. I want to focus on the swan but I keep being drawn to the blue spot to the NW of the swans head. I'm being drawn into the background and leaving the swan behind. Then I get annoyed at myself because I want to look at the swan but that spot keeps distracting me. But again, probably just me.

Dmariell, The Traveller gave you some good advice. As for the photo I am aware of that background distraction, and it could be photoshopped, but somehow I decided to leave it as it was - I did not want clinical images, because it would contradict the purpose of that photo session - just to go somewhere for an hour, make some shots and see what I would come up with. All these images have almost no post production, apart from some cropping, saturation on No 4 and conversion to B&W of No 1 with inevitable contrast adjustments.
Some more on the subject No 3 : I promised to myself not to shoot cats. It's not that I hate cats, but every Tom and Dick and Harry shoot cats and to me it is often a symptom of a photographic cul-de-sac
Swans are similar to cats in one respect - everyone shoots swans. If one hundred shutter clicks meant one bullet, there would be no swans on Earth any more. Then again there are jaw dropping photos of swans - and it only means that you have to be really really good to stand out with a pic of a swan. I am far from that good, so every time I see a swan I tell myself - stop. This guy is so full of photo bullets he can hardly keep afloat. With that particular swan I had no choice really because I had to produce something. I liked the arch, the shades and the dirty water that made it all slightly different. He/she was quite far away and I had to change my lense to 70-300 and wait before other swans move and there is only one, and then I had to wait for it to raise it's head... Luckily I could put my camera on the railing. When I saw the pic I new I would keep it raw and unpolished with that weird reverse reflection of the swan - just to capture the moment. Sorry for this wall of words, but I hope it makes sense.

 

[sashbar]

I'm really new so I only know what I like. I think you took some nice shots. I only have a comment on one of them. #3 keeps grabbing me and then disappointing me. It's probably just me. I want to focus on the swan but I keep being drawn to the blue spot to the NW of the swans head. I'm being drawn into the background and leaving the swan behind. Then I get annoyed at myself because I want to look at the swan but that spot keeps distracting me. But again, probably just me.

No, it's NOT "just you". There is an old adage that I often repeat: Light advances, dark recedes. The swan, being light, "advances", or jumps out to the eye. The light blue zone inside the darker storm drain area "advances" as well...it's a hard-wired thing in the human brain. In one way, it's a useful thing; I think the blue might be coming from a second grating that dumps in; it looks like shadowed light, coming in from street level. WHatever the cause, it DOES draw the eye of viewers, all of them, for at least some portion of the viewing time. And, it serves to draw the eye back to the dark zone, over and over upon extended viewing time. And, in this case, I think that's kind of a good thing. The drainage system is particular to that location; this shot is a very "real" photo. It contrasts the elegant and yet ungainly swan, versus the storm water drain system, which is kind of, shall we say "icky".

Excellent, Derrel, you said it much better than me

 

[Dmariehill]

I'm really new so I only know what I like. I think you took some nice shots. I only have a comment on one of them. #3 keeps grabbing me and then disappointing me. It's probably just me. I want to focus on the swan but I keep being drawn to the blue spot to the NW of the swans head. I'm being drawn into the background and leaving the swan behind. Then I get annoyed at myself because I want to look at the swan but that spot keeps distracting me. But again, probably just me.

No, it's NOT "just you". There is an old adage that I often repeat: Light advances, dark recedes. The swan, being light, "advances", or jumps out to the eye. The light blue zone inside the darker storm drain area "advances" as well...it's a hard-wired thing in the human brain. In one way, it's a useful thing; I think the blue might be coming from a second grating that dumps in; it looks like shadowed light, coming in from street level. WHatever the cause, it DOES draw the eye of viewers, all of them, for at least some portion of the viewing time. And, it serves to draw the eye back to the dark zone, over and over upon extended viewing time. And, in this case, I think that's kind of a good thing. The drainage system is particular to that location; this shot is a very "real" photo. It contrasts the elegant and yet ungainly swan, versus the storm water drain system, which is kind of, shall we say "icky".

Thanks - I'm trying to actually comment more and not just lurk. Mainly this time, I was curious why something was bugging me that didn't seem to be bugging someone else. I've been looking at others pics and the critiques to learn and to help my own photos.

 

[The_Traveler]

Learning to 'see' images, to parse the elements that make it succeed or fail is hard; it is like learning to judge wine, one has to first be aware of the issue and then understand how each specific issue contributes to the impact of the whole.

I wrote a blog post some months ago that has a framework for 'seeing' pictures; the post might be useful, it's a quick read -- Zenfolio | Lew Lorton Photography | Getting to a Final Image - some words on editing photos for a new photographer

 

[The_Traveler]

Since this discussion seems to be pretty productive, perhaps I can comment on the swan picture.

There are three or four really bright areas in the image. That is really too many to be centers of interest, particularly when a couple of them aren't very interesting.

There is the swan - obviously important, the wall next to the swan, a spot way in the distance in the culvert and the proximal end of the culvert.
If this were mine, I would darken the wall next to the swan so it doesn't pop out - because it isn't important.
Then I would darken the far spot so the wall of the tunnel is reasonably coherent and can be seen as one extended semi-bright area and rather interesting as a background - dark and dank rather than bright and cheerful.
The problem comes with the swan. In this picture it looks blown out, over-exposed so there is no detail in the feathers and that is really a disturbing point.

 

[sashbar]

After some consideration on my way to the supermarket I have come up with the explanation (read excuse) for this swan shot.
This is not a shot of a swan. This is an environmental shot of the conditions urban swans have to cope with. Hence all those disturbing details.
Now I will pretend that I knew it from the start.

 

[The_Traveler]

After some consideration on my way to the supermarket I have come out with the explanation (read excuse) for this swan shot.
This is not a shot of a swan. This is an environmental shot of the conditions urban swans have to cope with. Hence all those disturbing details.
Now I will pretend that I knew it from the start.

expert tactics

 

[Dmariehill]

After some consideration on my way to the supermarket I have come up with the explanation (read excuse) for this swan shot.
This is not a shot of a swan. This is an environmental shot of the conditions urban swans have to cope with. Hence all those disturbing details.
Now I will pretend that I knew it from the start.

I absolutely love it.

 

[sashbar]

OK, back to our swan. I have recovered some feathers, corrected WB so the water would look nicer and roughly darkened the tunnel. What do you think?

 

[Dmariehill]

I like the "movement" of the light/water on the right hand side down to the swan. Personally, I like not having the distraction of the blue so I like this verson better. To play devil's advocate though, I wonder, is it possible to minimize that blue light distraction without losing all of the texture of the underside of the culvert?