Random Photos : Part 4
Discussion
DibblyDobbler said:
singlecoil said:
I like that but think it would have been even better without the floodlight etc.
Cheers - I see the floodlight but what's the etc? 
singlecoil said:
I think actually I shouldn't have said anything at all, but I did and it's too late now so need to answer your follow-up question, it's the scaffolding on the building to the right, and the railings or whatever on the roof of the church.
Constructive criticism always welcome 
Have had a go at cloning out the offending clutter - not perfect but looks a bit cleaner now.
Melrose Abbey by Mike Smith, on Flickr
DibblyDobbler said:
singlecoil said:
I think actually I shouldn't have said anything at all, but I did and it's too late now so need to answer your follow-up question, it's the scaffolding on the building to the right, and the railings or whatever on the roof of the church.
Constructive criticism always welcome Have had a go at cloning out the offending clutter - not perfect but looks a bit cleaner now.
Melrose Abbey by Mike Smith, on Flickr
There were, however, two things I did observe.
Firstly - who nicked most of the statues? There are a lot of empty niches visible.
Secondly - the lower roof line of the remains of the Abbey on the left is almost but not quite aligned with the top of the hill visible behind (complete with its distracting fence?) Both the wall and the hill are quite sharp and detailed.
I first wondered if a slightly lower shooting position might leave the crumbling roof line set against the sky but wondered if that might look rather odd and perhaps introduce more extreme vertical keystone effects overall.
Alternatively raising the camera a few inches would present more of the hillside but better separation from the crumbling roof line. I'm wondering if such a nuanced difference would much alter the overall result and perhaps reduce the keystone effect over all.
I ask because there seem to be some possibilities for that to be done with this particular location when for most places the chances are minimal unless on a well funded, planned and official shoot.
LongQ said:
Yep, looks cleaner though I have to confess I did not spot the distractions at first glance.
I always look at Dibby's pics on Flickr as he usually posts decent sized versions there (he's not so paranoid about people pinching his pics ), plus I'm looking on a large monitor, it wasn't until I did that that I really noticed the extraneous material which he's now got rid of, an effort that was well worth it I reckon.singlecoil said:
LongQ said:
Yep, looks cleaner though I have to confess I did not spot the distractions at first glance.
I always look at Dibby's pics on Flickr as he usually posts decent sized versions there (he's not so paranoid about people pinching his pics ), plus I'm looking on a large monitor, it wasn't until I did that that I really noticed the extraneous material which he's now got rid of, an effort that was well worth it I reckon.That in itself is an interesting observation.
The "social media" revolution has people accepting a styled approach for small images that can easily hide some pretty poor photos without offering any really good excuse for them to be considered as "art".
Even the good ones where thought has been applied - like DD's usual output since we are talking about his image - have so much more to offer than we normally see by limiting ourselves to a glance at "normal" internet resolution.
It's strange that we may shell out thousands for some highly capable kit and then settle for the digital equivalent of a 110 format film camera contact image to see the results! (Ok, not quite that bad but Ill guess you get my drift.)
On the other hand I suppose the lower resolution of the standard internet offering does at least mean that the cloning skills required are perhaps (and fortunately) not as challenging to achieve as they might otherwise need to be ...
LongQ said:
Yep, looks cleaner though I have to confess I did not spot the distractions at first glance.
There were, however, two things I did observe.
Firstly - who nicked most of the statues? There are a lot of empty niches visible.
Secondly - the lower roof line of the remains of the Abbey on the left is almost but not quite aligned with the top of the hill visible behind (complete with its distracting fence?) Both the wall and the hill are quite sharp and detailed.
I first wondered if a slightly lower shooting position might leave the crumbling roof line set against the sky but wondered if that might look rather odd and perhaps introduce more extreme vertical keystone effects overall.
Alternatively raising the camera a few inches would present more of the hillside but better separation from the crumbling roof line. I'm wondering if such a nuanced difference would much alter the overall result and perhaps reduce the keystone effect over all.
I ask because there seem to be some possibilities for that to be done with this particular location when for most places the chances are minimal unless on a well funded, planned and official shoot.
Agreed - could have done with being a bit lower or higher! Ah well it was really just a snap as I was walking with Mrs DD. Plenty of potential there as you say There were, however, two things I did observe.
Firstly - who nicked most of the statues? There are a lot of empty niches visible.
Secondly - the lower roof line of the remains of the Abbey on the left is almost but not quite aligned with the top of the hill visible behind (complete with its distracting fence?) Both the wall and the hill are quite sharp and detailed.
I first wondered if a slightly lower shooting position might leave the crumbling roof line set against the sky but wondered if that might look rather odd and perhaps introduce more extreme vertical keystone effects overall.
Alternatively raising the camera a few inches would present more of the hillside but better separation from the crumbling roof line. I'm wondering if such a nuanced difference would much alter the overall result and perhaps reduce the keystone effect over all.
I ask because there seem to be some possibilities for that to be done with this particular location when for most places the chances are minimal unless on a well funded, planned and official shoot.
RobDickinson said:
Nice one Rob - 6D2? How are you liking it?DibblyDobbler said:
LongQ said:
Yep, looks cleaner though I have to confess I did not spot the distractions at first glance.
There were, however, two things I did observe.
Firstly - who nicked most of the statues? There are a lot of empty niches visible.
Secondly - the lower roof line of the remains of the Abbey on the left is almost but not quite aligned with the top of the hill visible behind (complete with its distracting fence?) Both the wall and the hill are quite sharp and detailed.
I first wondered if a slightly lower shooting position might leave the crumbling roof line set against the sky but wondered if that might look rather odd and perhaps introduce more extreme vertical keystone effects overall.
Alternatively raising the camera a few inches would present more of the hillside but better separation from the crumbling roof line. I'm wondering if such a nuanced difference would much alter the overall result and perhaps reduce the keystone effect over all.
I ask because there seem to be some possibilities for that to be done with this particular location when for most places the chances are minimal unless on a well funded, planned and official shoot.
Agreed - could have done with being a bit lower or higher! Ah well it was really just a snap as I was walking with Mrs DD. Plenty of potential there as you say There were, however, two things I did observe.
Firstly - who nicked most of the statues? There are a lot of empty niches visible.
Secondly - the lower roof line of the remains of the Abbey on the left is almost but not quite aligned with the top of the hill visible behind (complete with its distracting fence?) Both the wall and the hill are quite sharp and detailed.
I first wondered if a slightly lower shooting position might leave the crumbling roof line set against the sky but wondered if that might look rather odd and perhaps introduce more extreme vertical keystone effects overall.
Alternatively raising the camera a few inches would present more of the hillside but better separation from the crumbling roof line. I'm wondering if such a nuanced difference would much alter the overall result and perhaps reduce the keystone effect over all.
I ask because there seem to be some possibilities for that to be done with this particular location when for most places the chances are minimal unless on a well funded, planned and official shoot.
Next time you will have a few more positional tweaks to try ..... but whether the weather will be so amenable may be another matter.
It's still a nicely presented image just as it is.
Got a few snaps today in Fife with the RX10iii
Dysart Harbour by Mike Smith, on Flickr
West Wemyss by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Cormorant by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Striations by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Dysart Harbour by Mike Smith, on Flickr
West Wemyss by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Cormorant by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Striations by Mike Smith, on Flickr
DibblyDobbler said:
Nice one Rob - 6D2? How are you liking it?
Its nice! quick mini review - http://www.heroworkshops.com/blog/6d2
RobDickinson said:
DibblyDobbler said:
Nice one Rob - 6D2? How are you liking it?
Its nice! quick mini review - http://www.heroworkshops.com/blog/6d2
Trying out a new lens (70-200 F2.8 L IS II) with Mack at the weekend.
HAWLEY MEADOWS. FLICKR (1 of 3) by nessiemac1, on Flickr
HAWLEY MEADOWS. FLICKR (3 of 3) by nessiemac1, on Flickr
HAWLEY MEADOWS. FLICKR (2 of 3) by nessiemac1, on Flickr
HAWLEY MEADOWS. FLICKR (1 of 3) by nessiemac1, on FlickrHAWLEY MEADOWS. FLICKR (3 of 3) by nessiemac1, on FlickrHAWLEY MEADOWS. FLICKR (2 of 3) by nessiemac1, on FlickrSaturday I spent the day with Sporting Bears Motor Club at Yeolviton Air Show and we were able, at the end of the day to grab some shots in front of this little beauty .
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III by John, on Flickr
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III by John, on FlickrJSS 911 said:
Saturday I spent the day with Sporting Bears Motor Club at Yeolviton Air Show and we were able, at the end of the day to grab some shots in front of this little beauty .
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III by John, on Flickr
I really wish you'd been able to stand a foot or two to the right. My OCD does anyway. Still a great shot mind.Boeing C-17 Globemaster III by John, on Flickr
Loch Lomond Black and White by blayney1989, on Flickr
Loch Leven to Glen Coe 1 by blayney1989, on Flickr
Loch Leven 1 by blayney1989, on FlickrAs you can tell... first time with this camera, first time playing with the images.
Very interested in what I can do to get better, the images in these threads are some of the best I've ever seen.
nessiemac said:
Trying out a new lens (70-200 F2.8 L IS II) with Mack at the weekend.
HAWLEY MEADOWS. FLICKR (3 of 3) by nessiemac1, on Flickr
Love that !HAWLEY MEADOWS. FLICKR (3 of 3) by nessiemac1, on Flickrchrismarr said:
nessiemac said:
Trying out a new lens (70-200 F2.8 L IS II) with Mack at the weekend.
HAWLEY MEADOWS. FLICKR (3 of 3) by nessiemac1, on Flickr
Love that !HAWLEY MEADOWS. FLICKR (3 of 3) by nessiemac1, on Flickr
Got this yesterday at The Kelpies - well worth a visit if you are ever in the area
The Kelpies by Mike Smith, on Flickr
PS - FAO Singlecoil, I spent fecking ages cloning out all manner of gubbins from the background and am officially and finally finished!
The Kelpies by Mike Smith, on Flickr
PS - FAO Singlecoil, I spent fecking ages cloning out all manner of gubbins from the background and am officially and finally finished!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff