looking up

grimmett · Oct 31, 2003

I went downtown last week and had some fun. Here are some of the photos I took.

338%3A7%3C6723232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E232%3A%3D7%3A6%3D925%3DXROQDF%3E232346388385%3Aot1lsi

338%3A7%3C6723232%7Ffp8%3Enu%3D3239%3E6%3B5%3E834%3EWSNRCG%3D323255479383%3Anu0mrj

338%3A7%3C6723232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E232%3A%3D7%3A6%3D925%3DXROQDF%3E232346388644%3Bot1lsi

338%3A7%3C6723232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E232%3A%3D7%3A6%3D925%3DXROQDF%3E232346388645%3Aot1lsi

338%3A7%3C6723232%7Ffp8%3Enu%3D3239%3E6%3B5%3E834%3EWSNRCG%3D3232554795588nu0mrj

338%3A7%3C6723232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E232%3A%3D7%3A6%3D925%3DXROQDF%3E232346388%3B%3A%3C6ot1lsi

You likey? You no likey?
Thanks for looking.

Shubin · Oct 31, 2003

I like the second and third of this. The second one almost looks like a macro of a sunglasses case, while the third makes for an interesting abstract: round lines, straight lines, open space, and angles.

Thanks.

Not Neve · Oct 31, 2003

I like the 1st one best. I like the angle you took it. The building is also interesting so it makes a good subject. (the cut outs at the right and the crown looking design at the top).

I need to work on taking photos at different angles. Composition is so hard for me and it shouldn't be!

bogleric · Oct 31, 2003

I hate to say this, but I only find these interesting and nothing else. :twisted:

What elements were you trying to capture in your images?

grimmett · Nov 1, 2003

bogleric said:
I hate to say this, but I only find these interesting and nothing else. :twisted:

What elements were you trying to capture in your images?

Well, at least you found them interesting. I don't really think that's a bad thing, but I guess you do.
I'm not sure what you're trying to ask me with your question. Uh, I was taking some pictures of some buildings. As far as what elements.....well, I was trying to capture all the elements that make a photograph. If you have a specific question please feel free to ask.
Thanks for looking.

terri · Nov 1, 2003

Hi Grimmet, I like the second one the best. Vertical lines, but the angle you caught leads the eye from left to right...very good. And the reflection isn't bad, either!

#4 would make a good abstract but for the loss of focus in the foreground. If the entire image were sharp I'd say you had a killer shot there. But I admire the composition, regardless.

Nice job!

manda · Nov 2, 2003

2nd is cool
really cool
scary!

grimmett · Nov 2, 2003

terri said:
Hi Grimmet, I like the second one the best. Vertical lines, but the angle you caught leads the eye from left to right...very good. And the reflection isn't bad, either!

#4 would make a good abstract but for the loss of focus in the foreground. If the entire image were sharp I'd say you had a killer shot there. But I admire the composition, regardless.

Nice job!

Thanks Terri. Regarding your comments about the 4th picture....I knew it would be soft in the foreground and I intended it that way, but I see what you're saying about the foreground being in focus. Unfortunately, I don't think that's physically possible. I mean, I guess if I was using REALLY fast film and the amount of light was like 10 times what is was that day it might be, but otherwise, I don't see how. That photo was shot on a 310mm lens, so the depth of field is pretty small before you even factor in the other stuff. I'd love to hear any thoughts you have as to how I could have that whole frame in focus, I really would. I just don't see any way it's possible. I'm sure I could be wrong, and if I am please feel free to correct me. I don't want to sound argumentative, but that's like a 50 or 60 story building, so you're talking about having 500-600 ft in focus. I just don't see how.
Thanks for the kind comments though.

Thanks for looking.

terri · Nov 2, 2003

Hey, Grimmett!

If you noticed my signature you know you're dealing with a relative newbie, but I would have to say it is possible to get an image like that in full focus. I think actually you answered your own question - if you'd wanted greater DOF, you were definitely hampered by the lens you were using that day. A different lens, yes, and *maybe* faster film would aid as well, if you were in shadow. That being said - if you were going for softness in the foreground, then you've achieved your aim. If I were faced with that shot, I'd want the sharpness throughout cause I think it makes for a better abstract - but that's just me. :wink:

I still like the composition.

grimmett · Nov 3, 2003

terri said:
Hey, Grimmett! If you noticed my signature you know you're dealing with a relative newbie, but I would have to say it is possible to get an image like that in full focus. I think actually you answered your own question - if you'd wanted greater DOF, you were definitely hampered by the lens you were using that day. A different lens, yes, and *maybe* faster film would aid as well, if you were in shadow. That being said - if you were going for softness in the foreground, then you've achieved your aim. If I were faced with that shot, I'd want the sharpness throughout cause I think it makes for a better abstract - but that's just me.

I still like the composition.

Hey Terri. Thanks for the comments. I just wanted to correct something you said (hopefully without sounding like a know it all :roll: ). You say that having the building in shadow would have helped increase the dof. That's not true. In order to increase the depth of field you have to have more light so that you can close the iris down. If it was in shadow I would have had to open the iris up, which would decrease the dof. Having a faster stock would help too because it would allow me to close the iris down even more, whether in shadow or not. I know you're a beginner so I completely understand how you could be a bit unsure of these things. I sure used to be! I just wanted to clear that up so that I might help you have a bit of a better understanding of what I was trying to say. I hope it doesn't sound as though I'm talking down to you, because I certainly don't intend to.

Thanks for looking.

terri · Nov 3, 2003

You say that having the building in shadow would have helped increase the dof. That's not true.

Um....You're not talking down to me a bit, ok?

Don't worry about that....but I guess I misled you with my comment, because I only meant to say in a "shadowy" situation (like being in building shadow) a faster film can help in low light. duh. I didn't mean to tie that in specifically with the DOF issue. I re-read my words and I can see how you got that impression, though I was really pointing to the lens you mentioned. So you were right to correct me, as far as you knew. No harm no foul, k?

Hey, I've shot a ton of images, but only been at it *seriously* for a little over a year, so I will call myself a beginner for quite a while, cause I prefer to stay humble! But, the basics I DO get. :wink:

Sorry for the muddled comments!