Fun with MF images - ARCHIVED - FOR VIEWING ONLY

[Mexecutioner]

It was 108 degrees at home yesterday and these managed to make it just fine. Lots of deep watering with the drip system to keep the garden going.

Today we got some different types of eggplant, the little ones are "Japanese eggplant" (they probably stayed on the vine longer than they should have, but could only take photos today) and the others are supposed to be all "black beauty"; the seeds came from different places so they look different. I really like the green paintbrush looking strokes on one of them.



And these are some cucumbers, no the traditional type: "Lemon Cucumber" and "Suyo Long". The lemon ones do not look like cucumbers at all and you would think they are something completely different but they taste exactly the same as the ones you find at the store.



When still available I am trying to include the flowers of the plants, I think it is a nice little touch.

 

[nameBrandon]

It was 108 degrees at home yesterday and these managed to make it just fine. Lots of deep watering with the drip system to keep the garden going.

Today we got some different types of eggplant, the little ones are "Japanese eggplant" (they probably stayed on the vine longer than they should have, but could only take photos today) and the others are supposed to be all "black beauty"; the seeds came from different places so they look different. I really like the green paintbrush looking strokes on one of them.

View attachment 150976

And these are some cucumbers, no the traditional type: "Lemon Cucumber" and "Suyo Long". The lemon ones do not look like cucumbers at all and you would think they are something completely different but they taste exactly the same as the ones you find at the store.


View attachment 150975


When still available I am trying to include the flowers of the plants, I think it is a nice little touch.

That eggplant with the green.. I just want it to stay that way forever. Beautiful.

 

[nameBrandon]

There's a local photo contest (focusing on our community, this is our hospital) and I was thinking of entering one of these.. curious as to which you all like the best (or neither)!. The first was with the Cambo/cfvii50c and Hasselblad 80cmm CF. The second was with the same but Rode 40HR. 3/4 of the judges are photographers (two with actual art eduction, the other is more homegrown, local newborn photographer type).

- 1 -

.
.
.
.
- 2 -

There were unfortunately no clouds that day.. I did do a sky replacement on the first one which I'll post to my website, but composites aren't allowed in the competition.

 

[Deleted member 7792]

#1

IMHO, too much empty space in #2.

Good luck,

Joe

 

[nameBrandon]

#1

IMHO, too much empty space in #2.

Good luck,

Joe

Thanks Joe! I was leaning that way myself. I liked all the negative space in #2 but realize that's not everyone's cup of tea. I do actually have a series of #2 where it gets progressively closer to the mid-frame, but but the time it's mid-frame it loses something, I think.

 

[D&A]

I agree with Joe. #1 is the more interesting of the shots. I especially like all the geometric shapes, curvatures and reflections that abound in that image. It also has more intimacy that the other images. Yes a slightly more interesting sky might have been nice but if too busy, I believe it would be a distraction. I could suggest cloning in a flying saucer or two to liven things up but then again I won't. . Best of luck, I think it's a very good entry.

Dave (D&A)

 

[docholliday]

There's a local photo contest (focusing on our community, this is our hospital) and I was thinking of entering one of these.. curious as to which you all like the best (or neither)!. The first was with the Cambo/cfvii50c and Hasselblad 80cmm CF. The second was with the same but Rode 40HR. 3/4 of the judges are photographers (two with actual art eduction, the other is more homegrown, local newborn photographer type).

- 1 -

As an occasional/former judge, I like #1, but would prefer it cropped up from the bottom a bit. If this image was in front of me, I'd dock points for the following: The overhang/roof/awning reflection in the water is distracting as it makes my eye wander to it instead of the main subject, the building. I'd crop in from the bottom as it also puts a "base" to the image. The dead center horizon line makes the image "spin" on me and feels like it's floating with no grounding or weight.

I also see the very far left concrete column/pole as bright and drawing my eye to the edge. So I'd crop it out and make the other poles seem more "framed" by the darker brick.

As the image subject appears to be architecture, the last thing I'd dock points for is the extra part of the building at the right; it makes the clean lines of the main building not as "direct".

The second image doesn't convey much of a subject (I actually don't mind the neg space), as it doesn't seem to fit any category. If it was a landscape, it is too "flat" and if it was architecture, the subject doesn't stand out...

Please pardon my editing of your image, I hope you don't mind. But, seeing is easier than explaining...feel free to flog me otherwise!

 

[darr]

Sundown's Beautiful Light

Wakulla County, Florida | ALPA TC + SK 47/5.6 + CFV-50c

​

 

[nameBrandon]

As an occasional/former judge, I like #1, but would prefer it cropped up from the bottom a bit. If this image was in front of me, I'd dock points for the following: The overhang/roof/awning reflection in the water is distracting as it makes my eye wander to it instead of the main subject, the building. I'd crop in from the bottom as it also puts a "base" to the image. The dead center horizon line makes the image "spin" on me and feels like it's floating with no grounding or weight.

I also see the very far left concrete column/pole as bright and drawing my eye to the edge. So I'd crop it out and make the other poles seem more "framed" by the darker brick.

As the image subject appears to be architecture, the last thing I'd dock points for is the extra part of the building at the right; it makes the clean lines of the main building not as "direct".

The second image doesn't convey much of a subject (I actually don't mind the neg space), as it doesn't seem to fit any category. If it was a landscape, it is too "flat" and if it was architecture, the subject doesn't stand out...

Please pardon my editing of your image, I hope you don't mind. But, seeing is easier than explaining...feel free to flog me otherwise!
View attachment 151006

Thank you, that's fantastic feedback. I got your explanation just fine but was glad to have you edit the image to confirm visually. As the entrance fee is $25 an image, I am more than happy to take all the suggestions people would like to offer. Will definitely use your crop suggestions!

 

[docholliday]

Thank you, that's fantastic feedback. I got your explanation just fine but was glad to have you edit the image to confirm visually. As the entrance fee is $25 an image, I am more than happy to take all the suggestions people would like to offer. Will definitely use your crop suggestions!

Here's a little trick I've learned over the years... either print the image or do this fullscreen in something like Photoshop: flip the image upside down (rotate 180deg). Step back and look at the image from "normal viewing distance" (it does work better printed and with the actual submission size). See where your eye goes first. That's usually the focal point of your output. If it's not something on your subject, consider removing, darkening, or bluring that object. The human eye usually goes to the brightest or most "noisy" part.

Flipping it upside down confuses the mind and gets rid of the familiarity of the subject matter. There's times when I was judging that I'd ask for the print to be flipped upside down on the easel if there seemed to be something about the image that wasn't strong, but not enough that it was definitive.

When I'd enter a competition, I'd always print 16x20 test prints, let them dry overnight, and do a flip test with the image masked by black and white sheets of foamcore. It really helps when determining where to dodge/burn or vignette.

With that said, I was looking at the cropped image again and you might also consider doing a bit of brush dodging to the center rotunda of the building to give it a bit of "glow" just to make it have more dimension. Brighter colors come towards you and darker colors move away. Increasing this range gives more dimensionalism to the image.

Just my opinions...the upside down trick was told to me when I first started judging by another judge who was also a art professor and specialized in color theory/painting.

 

[jng]

Here's a little trick I've learned over the years... either print the image or do this fullscreen in something like Photoshop: flip the image upside down (rotate 180deg). Step back and look at the image. See where your eye goes first. That's usually the focal point of your output. If it's not something on your subject, consider removing, darkening, or bluring that object. The human eye usually goes to the brightest or most "noisy" part....

This is a great pointer that I'll definitely keep in mind. In fact, an upside-down and reversed image is what one sees when composing with a ground glass on a view camera (or on my Cambo back when I was using the IQ160 - talk about a contemplative pace). In terms of composition this is definitely a feature not a bug! I think some here have mused whether for example Phase One might include an "upside-down and reversed" live view feature on their digital backs...

John

 

[docholliday]

This is a great pointer that I'll definitely keep in mind. In fact, an upside-down and reversed image is what one sees when composing with a ground glass on a view camera (or on my Cambo back when I was using the IQ160 - talk about a contemplative pace). In terms of composition this is definitely a feature not a bug! I think some here have mused whether for example Phase One might include an "upside-down and reversed" live view feature on their digital backs...

John

Oh, that makes me miss my Wisner and Deardorff. No amount of digital tools can be as fun as drawing all over the GG with a grease pencil to compose multi-exposure shots!

 

[B L]

[/QUOTE]........ but composites aren't allowed in the competition.[/QUOTE]

Point to remember.
Now my question is: Multiple number of shots to stack (focus stacking). Are those also composites?
Thanks.

 

[docholliday]

........ but composites aren't allowed in the competition.[/QUOTE]

Point to remember.
Now my question is: Multiple number of shots to stack (focus stacking). Are those also composites?
Thanks.[/QUOTE]

Nope, that's not a composite - you produced one "negative" at the end of that process. A composite would be cutting out a tree from one shot, a building from another, pond from yet another, and blending them together to create a final image or digitally rendering one. I'd consider focus stacking and pano work as a shooting technique, no different that IR work or using 12 strobes in a complicated studio set. I wouldn't even consider hanging wires/rods in a studio shot to hold an object that gets erased in Photoshop a composite, as that would be a technique, not a compositional rendering.

Basically, the typical "no composites" rule applies to those who are "making" pictures in Photoshop vs capturing in camera. If I was ever in doubt of the authenticity of any image, I'd ask to see the negative/positive or original file, preferably in RAW format.

 

[nameBrandon]

........ but composites aren't allowed in the competition.

Point to remember.
Now my question is: Multiple number of shots to stack (focus stacking). Are those also composites?
Thanks.

Nope, that's not a composite - you produced one "negative" at the end of that process. A composite would be cutting out a tree from one shot, a building from another, pond from yet another, and blending them together to create a final image or digitally rendering one. I'd consider focus stacking and pano work as a shooting technique, no different that IR work or using 12 strobes in a complicated studio set. I wouldn't even consider hanging wires/rods in a studio shot to hold an object that gets erased in Photoshop a composite, as that would be a technique, not a compositional rendering.

Basically, the typical "no composites" rule applies to those who are "making" pictures in Photoshop vs capturing in camera. If I was ever in doubt of the authenticity of any image, I'd ask to see the negative/positive or original file, preferably in RAW format.

Yeah, this is what I was going for and put a B/W conversion on my website.. I figured I haven't gotten sky compositing down perfectly enough that it looks real, without question.. not to mention the water should be more blurry given the long sky exposure. So to me, this would've been stepping over the rules..

 

[nameBrandon]

Anyways, thanks again to everyone for your input.. moving along now..!

 

[docholliday]

Yeah, this is what I was going for and put a B/W conversion on my website.. I figured I haven't gotten sky compositing down perfectly enough that it looks real, without question.. not to mention the water should be more blurry given the long sky exposure. So to me, this would've been stepping over the rules..

...and your reflected sky in the water doesn't match! I see a puffy cloud vs streaks.

I actually like the shot without the clouds in the sky. Keeps a simple, clean look that draws the eye to the beautifully composed and exposed building.

 

[nameBrandon]

...and your reflected sky in the water doesn't match! I see a puffy cloud vs streaks.

I actually like the shot without the clouds in the sky. Keeps a simple, clean look that draws the eye to the beautifully composed and exposed building.

Thanks! I did attempt to reflect the sky in the water, but someone had me crop the bottom part out.. so I never got around to re-doing the reflection. I think it looked a bit cheesy myself, I was just looking for an excuse to start to composite all these long exposure sky shots I've been taking..

 

[dave.gt]

Some days it seems that one revisits images from the past (pre-Covid, happier times) and the moods of certain images fit the times. We are approaching yet another milestone in this pandemic ... 200,000 American lives lost. What is that equivalent to? Staggering to contemplate that the death toll is numerically almost a 9/11 terroristic attack every day for two straight months. Matt, check me on that...:facesmack:

This image from 2018, was made before dawn as we had met TC in Piedmont Park before sunrise. So, the first image was blue, and it just fits my mood. Strange how images evoke emotions, and may be more appropriate years after they were captured.

H5D-50c:

Edit: As the photo session progressed, the hint of the first light of dawn shown on the right building facades intensified, chasing the shadows and low clouds away. In just a few minutes, the sunlight was dazzling, and revealed the promise of the coming day.

Good memories, spending the morning with TC after wandering in the dark, carrying my gear, piloting my bride's wheelchair, and getting lost trying to find the shoot location. LOL. I now refer to this shoot, as the "Lost Session".

 

[Grayhand]

I can vouch for the 50R and 100-200mm lens. It is unbelievably sharp. And I agree hand held with the OIS is fantastic. I used it last night hand held at sunset at 200mm. Apparently the OIS even works while holding the camera, as it does not seem to "bounce around" while viewing. I wish my 32-64 was also OIS! Also, I love the 3D look to your image presentation. I have been adding an imaginary mat and frame, but your presentation is great.
Dave in NJ

I fully agree with you about the 32-64 lacking OIS.

The result now is that my 32-64 have been standing on the shelf since I bought the 45-100.
And my 110 has also spent its life on the shelf since I bought the 100-200.

The 110 has only one extra trick to offer compare to the 100-200.
And it is something that I very seldom need in my landscape photos..

Glad you like my presentation of my images.
It is rather easy to do but offers more "life" to the presentation.

Ray