Recent workshops

Post by **Charles Twist** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:24 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Hello All,
For your friendly critique, here are two pics from recent get-togethers. The first organised by Andrew at Brodsworth:

It took a while for that leaf to stand still for a full second. As I remember, at least long enough for Andrew and Marc to recce the tea-room and realise it was an ideal position.
And the second picture is from the visit to the Victorian Baths in Manchester, organised by Paul:

The one notable fact about this picture is that it was taken on Velvia 100 without colour correction for reciprocity in spite of it being a 16 minute exposure (give or take a few seconds).
Thanks go to the two organisers for two great days out.
I look forward to hearing your comments.
Charles

Apple · Post by **Apple** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:22 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

I like the first picture but I think I've been "coloured" by seeing too many tree frogs on big leaves that make me think the redness of the stalk needs a touch of enhancement to get a more graphic image... It's a nice composition with the angle of the major and minor leaves, their almost perpendicular ribs and the background isn't intrusive.

You managed to get the leaf steady enough for a shot finally, as well as being on call to hide when the rest of the area cleared... The one picture I took when you moved, somebody poked out from the background wearing a white top but I think they have a constant tone background behind them (they'll never know what hit them

)

One little niggle to me, your watermark gets a bit too prominant and then it's difficult to see round it. I saw it in the first picture and put up with it but I thought it was a strange reflection in the second picture at first and then it seemed to take over... I like the idea of the monogram but is it possible to make it a bit less obvious?

You did ask for comments!

Chong · Post by **Chong** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:55 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Hi Charles,
I agree with Andrew that the watermark is far too prominant and intrusive. It detracts the attention away from the wonderful works that you have managed to capture. Just my opinion.

Regards

Chong

gari · Post by **gari** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:12 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Have to agree about the watermark, when you uploaded the quarted image a few eekks ago I looked at it for ages before I worked out what was going on.
The leaves image is nice though a little bright for my taste(you probably noted that alot of my work is quite dark!!) but I really do like the pool shot, the green appeals and I like the composition. It has a stained glass feel about it.
Gari

Post by **Charles Twist** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:33 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Very useful! Oh well it seems the watermark idea has had its day. I know that the pictures are not particularly big files (so difficult to get a good copy/print-out). I am not a commercial photographer who needs to protect his work either. Should I mark my images or should I ditch the idea entirely? Part of the problem of the watermark is that it is subtle, and therefore blends in. You are less bothered about it on the leaf pic because the mark is clearer and therefore easier to see past. I know there are other ways of marking pictures, including inserting a note in the image file itself (somehow). Anybody know about this or have any other suggestions?
Thanks for your comments - much appreciated.
I look forward to hearing more.
Charles

Apple · Post by **Apple** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:46 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00

It seems like this has been turned into a logo-bashing thread

Digimark is one type of "internal" marking system AFAIR - certain programs will look for it when importing an image. I think it's a subscription service.

At least I included a comment about the image first

For the second picture, were you using something like a lunasix to get that length of exposure or was it a calculated exposure based on having to stop well down?

You've got away with the colour cast OK but is it case that velvia goes green with long exposures and you can't tell?

Post by **Joanna Carter** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:49 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Re the bannister rail support :

Velvia 100 only requires 2.5M filter for reciprocity throughout the range so lack of such a small correction, especially in such a green environment, is not really that important. I was using anything from 10M to 15M according to my colour meter, but I see no problem with your colour rendition.

The exposure compensation for reciprocity would appear to be 1 stop, so with 2 stops for the polariser and 1 for the bellows extension, I am guessing that the measured exposure would have been 1 second, well within the range of most meters.

The only other comment I would make is that it is a tad over-exposed for my taste, but nothing that could not be corrected in printing and purely a matter of personal taste.

Well done Charles, I am hoping to try a similar shot when we go back

Post by **Charles Twist** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:32 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Almost there, Jo: you slipped at the last hurdle. Exposure time indicated was 1 minute. Which is within range of the Sekonic light meter I use.
It is a touch on the thin side, but... As you know it was quite a dark spot, and I was really bothered by the very wide exposure range between the bright reflective top and the shadowy underside of the black iron-work - which I have succeeded in capturing. The top-side of the iron-work is a bit bright but still green by virtue of reflecting the tiles, so I wouldn't say it is too bright. The tiles could be made a little darker at the printing stage, but as Gari said they have a nice bright feel in their present state. I couldn't have done much with the bright highlights in the top right, though. Anyway, all the info is there in the tranny and the printer can now choose the best print. The picture is also interesting for how the depth of focus varies with the position on the plane of focus. It would probably need a more detailed scan to reveal that.
Andrew: thanks for the lead. Don't worry about bashing logos. I know I like it, but I now realise it is off-putting. I saw the same approach on C.Prior's site and I agree I found the picture harder to appreciate for it. But then, that's kinda the point...
Thanks,
Charles

Post by **Joanna Carter** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:45 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Charles Twist wrote:Almost there, Jo: you slipped at the last hurdle. Exposure time indicated was 1 minute.

Ah, yes, a slight mistake; I really meant to write minute but the fingers ran away with me

Don't get me wrong, the exposure thing is far from a criticism, simply an observation. The detail in both the rail and the support is truly astounding; I would love to see a larger version. Thanks for sharing such a lovely picture.