British Museum
Discussion
Yes - nice set of images. I happen to like the last (roof) shot, although some might find it a bit "cliched" (I won't try an accent it'd probably make Ted's system crash!!)
Now the movement in the people I do like. I spent some time in the Louvre, a year or two ago, trying to get something similar. Got someone to stand very still looking at something and increased the exposure times to get more ghostly images - I love that sort of effect, so have a try at even longer times if you get the chance.
Not totally convinced about the camera-wielding-tourists.
But I 'spect that's because they get under your feet even more than the flying rat population! 
Totem, I like. Maybe a touch more "punch", a bit more, perhaps B&W, of a - what's the word I want - documentary type look to it....?
>> Edited by beano500 on Wednesday 9th November 22:33
Now the movement in the people I do like. I spent some time in the Louvre, a year or two ago, trying to get something similar. Got someone to stand very still looking at something and increased the exposure times to get more ghostly images - I love that sort of effect, so have a try at even longer times if you get the chance.
Not totally convinced about the camera-wielding-tourists.
But I 'spect that's because they get under your feet even more than the flying rat population! Totem, I like. Maybe a touch more "punch", a bit more, perhaps B&W, of a - what's the word I want - documentary type look to it....?
>> Edited by beano500 on Wednesday 9th November 22:33
I nearly jumped at this:
- but the people aren't arranged right - two are directly blocked by the vase, most are walking away. I think taking a little more time, eg to get a couple of people walking towards you on the left, would have made this a winner. A bit more shutter speed, a bit less DOF maybe?
>> Edited by simpo two on Wednesday 9th November 23:17
- but the people aren't arranged right - two are directly blocked by the vase, most are walking away. I think taking a little more time, eg to get a couple of people walking towards you on the left, would have made this a winner. A bit more shutter speed, a bit less DOF maybe?
>> Edited by simpo two on Wednesday 9th November 23:17
Minimal skills in this area but the challenge looked interesting. A bit rough and I missed bits, an struggling to find a satisfactory way deal with the white thing above the urn and also to get a clever way to properly change the colours of sections of the background where the urn and wall colours blend - might also crop the left side as well.
But for now this will do as a suggestion.
But for now this will do as a suggestion.
LongQ said:
Minimal skills in this area but the challenge looked interesting. A bit rough and I missed bits, an struggling to find a satisfactory way deal with the white thing above the urn and also to get a clever way to properly change the colours of sections of the background where the urn and wall colours blend - might also crop the left side as well.
But for now this will do as a suggestion.
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to do here, or what you are trying to suggest. Ok, the concept didnt quite come off in the photo, but this thing you have posted is a shocking abomination!
matt gravy said:
.... shocking abomination!
Well I don't think it works. But I can see exactly what the Q-man was thinking. I'd even be tempted to try it myself. But the composition just ain't there. May as well cut out the piece of debris and paste it onto a totally different scene!
For people movement, there's no doubt the first one is the one with potential!
(Although every time I look I get a bit disturbed by the guy at the left picking his nose... )
>> Edited by beano500 on Thursday 10th November 10:59
beano500 said:
.... shocking abomination!
Well I don't think it works. But I can see exactly what the Q-man was thinking. I'd even be tempted to try it myself. But the composition just ain't there. May as well cut out the piece of debris and paste it onto a totally different scene!
For people movement, there's no doubt the first one is the one with potential!
(Although every time I look I get a bit disturbed by the guy at the left picking his nose... )
>> Edited by beano500 on Thursday 10th November 10:59
Both of you are right and I quite agree, but the point is really about whether any random composition can be made to work in some way by manipulation.
Some can, some can't though there might be a reason to highlight an object against a deliberately blurred background in a way that would not be possible using DOF/Exposure time in the conditions of the shoot. (Or it simply was not done at the time.)
For me the composition does not work for colour (loss of object in the background colours), I don't like the mix or sharp and blurred people movement that resulted and there are all sorts of issues with the left hand side which I don't think even judicious cropping could resolve without making things worse.
My edit is crap, as I pointed out, and the degree of blur applied to the background is too much, especially after compression has done its work. However, it one wanted to recover the original shot for some purpose where discarding it was not really an option (or you were just very fond of it!) playing around with something that makes the primary subject stand out and reducing, but not eliminating entirely, the contextual background setting is an approach that could be employed, if better executed than my attempt. I was looking for something to change the people movement problem, as an experiment, but this amount of blur is too much and anything less looked even worse to my eyes. However the background colour and the problematic doorway completely defeated the object of the exercise without seeking major surgery - for which there is no point.
Personally I felt that this particular image has too many issues to make it worth the effort and it seems there is consensus about that!
Still, always worth doing a quick check to make sure one has not missed something worth considering. Especially if it's a shot which you really want to keep (family snaps for example) but is suffering from a bad background - as most family snaps do.
beano500 said:
...is suffering from a bad background - as most family snaps do.
Well, you might think that but I couldn't possibly comment ...
I will confess that if I think the subject matter may damage the lens I tend to take the required shots with the lens cap on. Then claim camera malfunction later.
I like 'em. Some excellent rules well broken. I have tried taking shots at the BM myself and it is a less than easy environment as well as being damn hard to come up with some original ideas. Best advice if you want a perfectly exposed and framed shot that's a perfect record but not art - buy a postcard from the shop.
The problem with the shot was that there was nothing more that could be done from that starting point. Attempting to blur the b/g lost the motion blur on the people, which was its main charm. IMHO the camera position was fine, but the cast of characters was wrong.
Following my museum shots in the 'Cambridge' thread, and with other interior available light shots in mind, I've just chosen a 35mm f1.4 lens. It's MF, but that means it's more affordable than the 28mm AF which is £1,000+ !!
Following my museum shots in the 'Cambridge' thread, and with other interior available light shots in mind, I've just chosen a 35mm f1.4 lens. It's MF, but that means it's more affordable than the 28mm AF which is £1,000+ !!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff