🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/3LqnCuJ 🎁

Still Life ... Yarn & Vase

kdthomas

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
1,117
Reaction score
474
Location
Denton, TX
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Any preference for post processing? Or thoughts on the image as a whole?
1)
Volcano-1.jpg

2)
Volcano-2.jpg
 
The second shot looks like the white tones are more properly-placed, where in the first the whites look muddied. Shot one is a bit more somber, where shot two us a bit snappier, and shows things more clearly.Overall, I like the moody aspect of #1, but prefer the clearer tone separation in #2.
 
I like the second one better.
 
Here's the same scene with the 4x5. Had a forward tilt on the front standard and kept the rear std plumb. This (I have discovered) gives the miniature effect. Second image is a direct scan of the negative.

Volcano-4x5-1.jpg

VolcanoSOOC-4x5-1.jpg
 
Wow, such a different "feel" on the second pair! It's amazing what camera movements actually do to the image! Just seeing these is making me crave a 24mm and 45mm T/S lens set. I will talk about something that bugs me, and that is the way seamless paper shows its ripples and becomes a textured background whenever light is shot along it, and not "at it". Maybe it's just me, but for anybody that's worked with studio flash and seamless, there's this look to the paper when the background light strikes it, and the texture is revealed; for me, it's like fingernails on chalkboard...I just do not like the photo when I see that.

Deep DOF shots show the background and show the wrinkles, and for me at least, it kills the magic...kills the illusion...the texture makes the background advance for me, visually...and that's actually the central thing I do not like about the first two shots done with this setup; the way the background is lighted. I like the effect, the semi-circle of light, but I think a better way to do it would be to aim the light straight back at the paper, from right below the vase, using a snoot, so the angle from light to backdrop paper is pretty straight-on. I think the background needed to be rendered more OOF than it was in the first two shots. I'm not sure how other people feel about this; this is not a subject that many people discuss, unless they light a lot of paper backgrounds. The view camera shots really CHANGED the background's rendering, for the better--the top most part of the seamless is all that's in good focus, and the rest of the paper becomes light and tone--and does not "read" so much as "paper, lighted by flash". To me, that makes the second set of photos much stronger, more abstractionist in nature, and just..better.
 
The second for the contrast.

I like the way most of the string goes out of the frame, but I'd accentuate that by cropping some on the bottom, which also would simplify the composition by eliminating that narrow "zone" on the bottom which I'm not sure adds anything. May be just me ...
 

Most reactions

Back
Top