The NewsTalkers Photographers Group ... A Challenge & Informal Tutorial
The following images share a common element ... can you identify what that is?
Hint 1
Hint 2 - What I DIDN'T DO in any of these images is as significant as what I did do!
______________________________________________________________________
1) Outdoor Cafe, Victoria, B.C. Canada
2) White-tailed Deer Fawn
3) Lighthouse, Oregon Coast
4) This image IS NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE of the element in question ... although it employs it to some extent. I'll eventually explain. Oh ... that's me on the left. In 1958 and 1960, I was selected to an All-Philadelphia All Star Team ... the games were played in Connie Mack Stadium (formerly Shibe Park) ... long since demolished. It was a thrill to pitch from the same mound as players like Robin Roberts, Warren Spahn, Whitey Ford ... a young kid's dream-come-true.
Tags
Who is online
692 visitors
One of the tags is also a hint.
If you know the answer or want to post your idea(s), please do.
The ones that have good composition are the ones where the subject is put off center. This creates interest.
Really nice lesson Mac. I hope that we can get this group off the ground.
You've discussed this before, haven't you A.Mac, the rule of thirds, or something like that?
Perrie and Terry ... (poetic!),
Both are correct. Putting a subject dead center makes it appear static and less interesting. The degree of visual "tension" created by placing important parts of a composition on or near the horizontal and vertical thirds, can make a good photo/image ... really good!
I can see we're ready for the advanced class.
Nice responses/analyses.
Give the article a little more time/exposure and I will issue a challenge regarding the "Rule of Thirds."
Smart people make sharing information a pleasure.
It always worries me when you say something nice A.Mac. I immediately turn around, expecting to be hit from behind!
No concerns Terry, I always hit frontally.
Besides ... while I hate your politics, I actually think highly of you personally.
Damn it ... I saw you look over your shoulder.
I'm careful that way, you sweet (forked?) tongued devil you!
Who you callin' "sweet"?
Tasty ... perhaps ...
Tasteful ...
Naaaaaah.
Forked tongue ...
It helps me remove the insects ...
Devil ...
Horny then?
Thanks A.M.!
While looking at the deer picture I can know see how I might have been tempted to take that shot, the way I used to always....line it up and try to get the entire subject to fill the shot. I can also see how the deer's back and legs follow the composition.
Alright!
:~)
Maybe what you DIDN'T do is take the last photo yourself.
Buzz,
My father took the last picture ... in 1960.
I will discuss its compositional elements as part of this discussion.
Okay, let's talk about the cafe. Either you did not focus properly, or else you didn't want to in order that the patrons would not be identified, since you probably did not get a release, especially from that first woman. However, you did provide the feeling of depth to the photo.
The placement of the fawn is important, not being in the centre of the photo, but since it is looking to the left, you provided more space to the left, so that the fawn would not be looking OUT of the photo frame.
I seelittletoremark aboutin the seascape, with a horizon that is in the upper third of the photo, and depth is achieved by having the lighthouse in the distance but with a hillside up close - perhaps a little too much hillside.
Although you didn't take the last photo, the distraction is the player running in the background. Typical of family photos, it is too posed. It could have been more interesting if one of you was at bat and the other catching (without a mask, of course).
But goshreally, that last one posed the way it was, with thegraininessof thebackgroundfading through that background player, makes it a very pure classicAmericana-style childhood shot.Especiallythe pose.
I've rethought that first photo (the cafe). It makes me think of a painting rather than a photo because of the fuzziness - a little surreal. With the umbrellas, it could have been in Paris.
Buzz,
The cafe shot was manipulated in Photoshop to create the look of a pastel chalk poster print for two reasons; first, I thought it lent itself to such a presentation and second, exactly as you said ... the patrons in the foreground would have been recognizable and, without model releases, I could not have submitted them for publication. The first "woman" is actually a man.
Good call.
On the fawn ... again, good call. While it's not always possible, when the lines, etc. of a subject lead the eye to one side or another, it usually is more effective to place them so they lead into the scene rather than out of one of the edges of the scene.
The lighthouse is pretty close to the intersection of the left, vertical third and the upper horizontal third. The hillside is an overlapping plane which enhances distance. From where I took the shot, I couldn't stand any higher, so, yes, it would have been a better shot had I been able to take it from a higher position ... or, if I wasn't a short guy and had a taller tripod.
My father indeed posed the last photo ... his son was about to pitch in a Major League, historical ball park and the photo was for posterity (and his braggin' rights). So, as a (double) portrait, like many other portraits, particularly of the family "snapshot" variety, it was stiff and obviously posed.
Parents, friends, etc. were not allowed out of the stands so all photos had to be taken some distance from the playing field. Players did not have access to bats, etc. before the game other than to throw on the sidelines and in the bullpens.
I think the picture is still pretty decent compositionally; you're the the player behind me and my teammate is a distraction, but, in a kind of documentary way. The outfield grandstand is on the upper third and the gloves on the bottom third ... serendipity or possibly instinctive.
Thank you for taking the time to critique the shots ... this is how I hoped the discussion might go. And you could certainly post discussion with the knowledge you possess; I hope you do.
The graininess, due to how Kodachrome slides sometimes scan, while photographically imperfect, does exactly what you say, Larry .. it shows us AMERICANA BASEBALL!
And don't we love it!
It does have a French Impressionist feeling.