untitled

[bribrius]

 

[bribrius]

cc requested. color framing difraction more focus point dof exposure pp lighting level leading line crop sharpness iso 100 f11 160 -1ec ap priority matrix

 

[minicoop1985]

IT'S BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD.







JK. Actually, it's not bad, but it needs something. It would be an excellent backdrop for a Range Rover or a Lamborghini, methinks. It's just lacking that main focus point, and as such, lacks photographic interest to me.

 

[bribrius]

IT'S BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD.







JK. Actually, it's not bad, but it needs something. It would be an excellent backdrop for a Range Rover or a Lamborghini, methinks. It's just lacking that main focus point, and as such, lacks photographic interest to me.

i think that is the only thing i didn't ask for cc on.

 

[minicoop1985]

LOL whoops. Anyway, it seems a wee bit undercooked, but the DOF seems good with no diffraction issues that I can see. It MIGHT be a WEEEE bit cool color wise, but it looks like it's accurate to the scene.

 

[bribrius]

LOL whoops. Anyway, it seems a wee bit undercooked, but the DOF seems good with no diffraction issues that I can see. It MIGHT be a WEEEE bit cool color wise, but it looks like it's accurate to the scene.

thanks. i am really out of my league with this type of work anyway. i need like twice the mps. and probably a helluva lot more skill. which is kind of discouraging. i still try though. Kinda depressing at times but i give it a shot.

 

[pgriz]

I'll apologize in advance. I don't or can't seem to find what it was that caught your eye. What I SEE is a snow-covered driveway surrounded by old-style industrial buildings which seem to still be in use. All the buildings have some repeating elements, but they are not arranged in a supportive or contrasting manner. There are some leading lines, but they don't seem to point to anything interesting. The driveway itself looks like hundreds of driveways in industrial parks, and does not appear particularly note-worthy. So truthfully, I'm kinda lost in trying to understand or see what caught your eye.

 

[limr34 3]

Crop the left building out. With it, you have, as Paul said, a driveway and a couple of buildings. Sort of leading lines, but not leading to much interesting. If you crop the left building out, you're left with cleaner lines and fewer distractions from a more geometric pattern of light and shadow, loading dock and incomplete fence, windows on the back building and on the front one. I'd also crop some from the right to get rid of that concrete doohickey in the foreground and to highlight the window of the front building.

 

[KenC]

There's some interesting stuff there and any of us could crop it to frame what we find interesting and/or what we feel would make a composition that works, but you need to decide for yourself how to do this. I don't see anything problematic technically, it's just a matter of deciding what you want to highlight.

 

[snowbear120 51]

but it needs something. It would be an excellent backdrop for a Range Rover or a Lamborghini, methinks. It's just lacking that main focus point, and as such, lacks photographic interest to me.

I was thinking more like a woman and a man dressed rather skimpily.

 

[KenC]

but it needs something. It would be an excellent backdrop for a Range Rover or a Lamborghini, methinks. It's just lacking that main focus point, and as such, lacks photographic interest to me.

I was thinking more like a woman and a man dressed rather skimpily.

I'd rather see the woman dressed rather skimpily.

 

[snowbear120 51]

but it needs something. It would be an excellent backdrop for a Range Rover or a Lamborghini, methinks. It's just lacking that main focus point, and as such, lacks photographic interest to me.

I was thinking more like a woman and a man dressed rather skimpily.

I'd rather see the woman dressed rather skimpily.

A little something for everyone - a man and a woman. I don't discriminate.
Add a dog & a cat for the kiddies, and you might be able to pull a PG rating.

 

[bribrius]

There's some interesting stuff there and any of us could crop it to frame what we find interesting and/or what we feel would make a composition that works, but you need to decide for yourself how to do this. I don't see anything problematic technically, it's just a matter of deciding what you want to highlight.

this is where i get confused. sometimes i shoot things like this as i collect, somewhat follow historical photos similiar in aspect. i have also ran into people online and watching/reading that are still shooting similiar things but using large format 8x10 etc. Museum level quality stuff totally out of my league with a p.o.s. nikon (but i try).

when i frame, or crop astracts, simple flowers a normal landscape scene. i generally can pull that off with minor headache. when i get to larger scale, i still get a little confused in both framing and cropping, as it is a different type of photo. The above photo i actually did two frames on originally, chose this one. Went through three different crops, and ended up right back here where is real close to the original framing.
i get stuck on these types of photos, as i try to understand the difference between how i look at something on a computer screen vs how i view it as a wall print and the distance i am viewing something. Normally, if i am looking at something at a gallery i will start a few feet back, view it, then step forward and breakdown the frame in sort of sections to scrutinize. when i shoot something like this i try to correlate that to me standing a few feet back, then stepping forward. so while i am tempted to simplify, crop, i start thinking when i look over a frame first hand, i break it down in sections, especially with more complicated type images.

if that makes any sense.

so simply, when you consider cropping or composition. Are you looking at as for all sizes of print and viewing distance and online being of the same? Or does you composition and framing depend on the specific photo and size of print/viewing etc. i have noticed most earlier photographers that shot this type of thing, and some current that still do this type of thing shoot "the entire frame". But i havent figured out if it is because they framed it particularly how they wanted it to start with, or if it is just a methodology in practice for doing this type of work. Or maybe, they just looked at everything going to print and being hung and seen from a foot away. But here is where i get confused.

 

[Mike Lamb]

More sky.

 

[bribrius]

More sky.

that is the only thing cropped now. i put the top on it then it is right back in original framing. i might as well have left it alone. lol