Composition and all that Arty stuff - discussion thread.

jetcode wrote in post #16614581
I'm not controlling that. You are.

Sometimes Jetcode, I get the sense that you argue for the sake of arguing and that you are trying to create a reaction.

Which means your comments can be a little over strong at times.

An old one from me...

Your thoughts? (before I share mine).

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …12990548@N08/12​027802675/

mtimber wrote in post #16617624
The original name was more an attempt to separate this thread from the hundreds of gear head threads on this forum (which has its own place of course), and was a very quick decision...

I see.

In that case...

mtimber wrote in post #16617668
An old one from me...

Your thoughts? (before I share mine).

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …12990548@N08/12​027802675/
Hidden light (1 of 1)-Edit-Edit by mtimberlake71@btintern​et.com, on Flickr

What camera did you take it with?
It seems kind of grainy, maybe you should decrease your ISO or use a tripod.
And stop the lens down a bit more while you're at it, because in the sharpness department it just isn't there. Would be nice to have larger DOF.

Try catching up with the rest of the world and shooting with at least a prosumer body, ideally with a 1 series. This way you'll be able to make a proper color picture.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16617962
I see.

In that case...


What camera did you take it with?
It seems kind of grainy, maybe you should decrease your ISO or use a tripod.
And stop the lens down a bit more while you're at it, because in the sharpness department it just isn't there. Would be nice to have larger DOF.

Try catching up with the rest of the world and shooting with at least a prosumer body, ideally with a 1 series. This way you'll be able to make a proper color picture.

A better camera fixes everything

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16617962
I see.

In that case...


What camera did you take it with?
It seems kind of grainy, maybe you should decrease your ISO or use a tripod.
And stop the lens down a bit more while you're at it, because in the sharpness department it just isn't there. Would be nice to have larger DOF.

Try catching up with the rest of the world and shooting with at least a prosumer body, ideally with a 1 series. This way you'll be able to make a proper color picture.

What about the composition? lol

For some reason, grainy doesn't bother me. I like the sort of low key look to it and the softness to some of the flowers. It makes them seem more delicate.
If it were a photo I were taking, I would have also given it the space on the left. However, I can't say why. Something about the direction of the flower faces. I would have probably left space on the top as well, if there wasn't anything else up there. Perhaps to accentuate the nicely lit flowers in the darkness.

I hope no one noticed the phone pics I put in the thread for composition analysis.

Hi Mark,

Anytime you group things together like this they tend to become one even though they can be a few. With tone you move the eye to same place all of the little arrows are pointing to. The flowers are all forming little arrows.

Joe is just forcing conversations that we sometimes seem to dance around instead of just getting to it. If you've ever been in a creative meeting with art directors and others on the money side they can get very intense and you need to be able to defend your position without getting emotional and personal because it's not personal.

And I think that good commercial work of any kind is very difficult and a lot of it can be very good. If I didn't think I was creating something good I wouldn't do it no matter how much money was involved. But the world in which you create for you is usually different from the world where you create for others.

That doesn't mean you don't have to be creative. In fact with creative work you have to be creative on demand and if you don't exceed that clients expectations consistently you will not stay in business. It doesn't mean one is better than the other they are just different and rarely is anything created for commercial purposes art. That doesn't mean what you've created isn't good. It just means it's usually is not an honest expression of what you the creator felt about life as Adams so eloquently put it.

Creating in a commercial environment is not easy. It's not about the photographer and the ego needs to get checked at the door. It's about meeting the needs of the client. A lot of what is created has a short self life. It has a goal of making money for the client. As Mike talked about it can be a team environment with clothing stylists, art directors, hair and make-up artists, assistants, models, photo stylists, etc.

Creating for you is usually a solitary experience and if it is a team involved you are the driving voice. Not the money, not the client or anything else.

And there is room in this thread for conversations about all of it. Why not? These are all things that get far to little discussion in my opinion.

bugadrienne wrote in post #16618009
What about the composition? lol

For some reason, grainy doesn't bother me. I like the sort of low key look to it and the softness to some of the flowers. It makes them seem more delicate.
If it were a photo I were taking, I would have also given it the space on the left. However, I can't say why. Something about the direction of the flower faces. I would have probably left space on the top as well, if there wasn't anything else up there. Perhaps to accentuate the nicely lit flowers in the darkness.

I hope no one noticed the phone pics I put in the thread for composition analysis.

This might have been a tighter crop than the original, but cannot find it.

Grain was added in post.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16618024
Hi Mark,

Anytime you group things together like this they tend to become one even though they can be a few. With tone you move the eye to same place all of the little arrows are pointing to. The flowers are all forming little arrows.

Joe is just forcing conversations that we sometimes seem to dance around instead of just getting to it. If you've ever been in a creative meeting with art directors and others on the money side they can get very intense and you need to be able to defend your position without getting emotional and personal because it's not personal.

And I think that good commercial work of any kind is very difficult and a lot of it can be very good. If I didn't think I was creating something good I wouldn't do it no matter how much money was involved. But the world in which you create for you is usually different from the world where you create for others.

That doesn't mean you don't have to be creative. In fact with creative work you have to be creative on demand and if you don't exceed that clients expectations consistently you will not stay in business. It doesn't mean one is better than the other they are just different and rarely is anything created for commercial purposes art. That doesn't mean what you've created isn't good. It just means it's usually is not an honest expression of what you the creator felt about life as Adams so eloquently put it.

Creating in a commercial environment is not easy. It's not about the photographer and the ego needs to get checked at the door. It's about meeting the needs of the client. A lot of what is created has a short self life. It has a goal of making money for the client. As Mike talked about it can be a team environment with clothing stylists, art directors, hair and make-up artists, assistants, models, photo stylists, etc.

Creating for you is usually a solitary experience and if it is a team involved you are the driving voice. Not the money, not the client or anything else.

And there is room in this thread for conversations about all of it. Why not? These are all things that get far to little discussion in my opinion.

It has been good the thread has picked up recently, enjoying the discussion.

Just want Joe to calm down a little, whilst a blunt approach may be okay with your understanding of each other, new people might be put off entering the thread if they are met with heavy negativity and this thread is about helping people explore composition.

Back to talking about work.

And I to would like to see more people posting.

I rarely shoot florals. I mean RARELY...
Saw the light on this one late spring day last year while walking past it and went home and grabbed the camera and went back. I think I have posted this here before sorry. Just thought I 'd put it up again.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16618096
Back to talking about work.

And I to would like to see more people posting.

I rarely shoot florals. I mean RARELY...
Saw the light on this one late spring day last year while walking past it and went home and grabbed the camera and went back. I think I have posted this here before sorry. Just thought I 'd put it up again.

I think I see arrows. A lot of them. lol The flower takes my attention first. Then the nice texture of the leaves. It sort of leads out of the frame on the bottom. I love that texture!

bugadrienne wrote in post #16618120
I think I see arrows. A lot of them. lol The flower takes my attention first. Then the nice texture of the leaves. It sort of leads out of the frame on the bottom. I love that texture!

Or with the brightness at the base of the leaves and the stem lines going beyond the base of the leaves leads the eye into the frame from the bottom right? And the base of those three leaves which are brighter at the base which are at the bottom rt could be pointing in?

bugadrienne wrote in post #16618120
Then the nice texture of the leaves. It sort of leads out of the frame on the bottom. I love that texture!

The texture of the leaves has always been what I liked about this image (I have seen it before, maybe not in this thread though) and the leaves seem to cascade down the image beautifully, almost in ripples as if liquid.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16617962
Try catching up with the rest of the world and shooting with at least a prosumer body, ideally with a 1 series. This way you'll be able to make a proper color picture.

Ahh, those comments will only discourage him. Can't you say one constructive thing in your whole critique? For my part, I'll say that this pitiful shot can be salvaged. mtimber, just bump up the saturation in Lightshop. You don't want it looking like film, do you?

But seriously, folks--
I like the overall shape that the flower cluster makes and its placement within the frame. That the brightest area is internal, however, I find discomforting. A more favorable way to say this is that it creates tension. Maybe it looks unnatural? The expected place for the flower that looks whitest would be at one edge of the cluster.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16618096
Saw the light on this one late spring day last year while walking past it and went home and grabbed the camera and went back.

You left home without a camera?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16618196
Or with the brightness at the base of the leaves and the stem lines going beyond the base of the leaves leads the eye into the frame from the bottom right? And the base of those three leaves which are brighter at the base which are at the bottom rt could be pointing in?

That works too now that you mention it. lol

For me, it is more like Owain said.
I really like a good texture.

I was looking over yesterday morning's wide angle photos, and harsh light be damned, I think this one is a better composition for what I was going for.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …12742168@N08/12​022702774/