Reefs.org Forums

[mkirda]

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topi ... ex=1#photo

This is a scan of a C-print. As such, it does not compare to the slide. The original slide is about 1/3 stop underexposed, IMO. Not a killer by any stretch, but the whites should pop a little more.

That aside, anything else that needs improvement?
I am looking for serious constructive criticism.

Regards.
Mike Kirda
P.S. Also submitted as my first image for LPS contest in case Photo.net is too slow...

[Sharkky]

I really like the DOF control...it adds a lot of dimensionality to the frame. It's a little dark for my taste, but then again the greens contrast really well, so it almost becomes a non-issue. I think you'd lose some of the brilliance if you tried to brighten it. From a compositional standpoint, I think the framing is fine, but there's one tiny, tiny, (and I mean tiny) thing that I noticed. At the very top of the frame, just left of center, you have one large bulb of the tentacle cut off, but that cluster seems to dominate and become the central focus of the frame. So I'd like to see that entire bulb. Other than that, though, I think this shot is top-notch.

[Len]

Being the aspiring Ansel that I am , there's a few finer details I would post process (either in a wet darkroom or digital "darkroom"). There is one small section at the very top middle (a bit to the right) that is blown that I would burn (or clone). For some reason, my eyes keep drifting towards it and it's distracting. A tiny speck on the dominant polyp cluster that John mentioned can also be removed. Definitely 1/3 to 1/2 stop underexposed, but the effect is actually quite pleasant to me. Nice abstract. I'm not sure if there's anything I would improve upon.

[mkirda]

Being the aspiring Ansel that I am , there's a few finer details I would post process (either in a wet darkroom or digital "darkroom"). There is one small section at the very top middle (a bit to the right) that is blown that I would burn (or clone). For some reason, my eyes keep drifting towards it and it's distracting. A tiny speck on the dominant polyp cluster that John mentioned can also be removed. Definitely 1/3 to 1/2 stop underexposed, but the effect is actually quite pleasant to me. Nice abstract. I'm not sure if there's anything I would improve upon.

Well, the speck was on the coral, hence was reproduced. Dust, I typically remove. I didn't seem to notice anything as being blown out- just as about as high as Velvia could reproduce.

Thanks for the comments so far- I was looking more for critique of my photo, rather than my Photoshop skills. Hence, the image has not been post-processed. I'm sure with a good scan and an hour in PS, I could fix the little things.

Keep'em coming!

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[mkirda]

I really like the DOF control...it adds a lot of dimensionality to the frame. It's a little dark for my taste, but then again the greens contrast really well, so it almost becomes a non-issue. I think you'd lose some of the brilliance if you tried to brighten it. From a compositional standpoint, I think the framing is fine, but there's one tiny, tiny, (and I mean tiny) thing that I noticed. At the very top of the frame, just left of center, you have one large bulb of the tentacle cut off, but that cluster seems to dominate and become the central focus of the frame. So I'd like to see that entire bulb. Other than that, though, I think this shot is top-notch.

Taking the frame, I was limited to how I could compose it. I remember that I had to tighten it up more than I wanted, but cannot remember exactly the reason why. As it was, I broke about three compositional 'rules', yet I like the results anyway.

The clusters form circles. The bottom one is just slightly off-center to the right, in the bottom half of the frame. The upper one is to the left, off-center. Both of these would have worked better in a square MF frame, but I do not have the equipment to do this properly, so I am stuck in 35mm's 3:2 frame. I think if I had pulled it back, something distracting came into the frame. The vertical composition absolutely did not work.

One begins to wonder what you could do with a 4x5 and a good strobe setup...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[Len]

Heh I've always considered post processing an integral part of photographical workflow, whether it's done in a darkroom or photoshop.

I find your image compositionally appealing. Compositional rules are overrated Focal points is a bit unbalanced towards the left, but not uncomfortably so. There's a good play of light and shadow, and although it's got good textures, i think the underexposure reduced some of the more intricate lines and shadow detail. As John said, your dof control is impeccable in this photo, with good bokeh for defocused areas.

I'm not sure what you mean by lacking the equipment to do a square frame. Unless you're intending on doing the very large prints, you could just pull back with the existing 3:2 frame and crop down to the square frame you're after. A MF (6x6 ) would be sweet, but 35mm should more then suffice. Personally, I like the 3:2 dimension better, but I can understand it if pulling back to bring in the lower "circle" would also bring in unsightly elements to the sides. But I personally think having more defocused background gives the foreground shapes more context and signifigance (hence, i prefer 3:2 if possible).

I love compositionally discussions .... it's like politics

[Sharkky]

I love compositionally discussions .... it's like politics

Don'tchoo make me move this to the Sump!

[mkirda]

Heh I've always considered post processing an integral part of photographical workflow, whether it's done in a darkroom or photoshop.

I'm not sure what you mean by lacking the equipment to do a square frame. Unless you're intending on doing the very large prints, you could just pull back with the existing 3:2 frame and crop down to the square frame you're after. A MF (6x6 ) would be sweet, but 35mm should more then suffice. Personally, I like the 3:2 dimension better, but I can understand it if pulling back to bring in the lower "circle" would also bring in unsightly elements to the sides. But I personally think having more defocused background gives the foreground shapes more context and signifigance (hence, i prefer 3:2 if possible).

Again, understand the frame was taken for projection, not for the web. (I have tons I can improve by cropping. I chose in this case to make it representative of the original frame, warts and all. IOW, it fits the definition on Photo.net for 'unmanipulated'.)

I think the composition could have been made more interesting in 6x6 MF, but the only MF camera I have (Yashica Mat124G) would not be capable of taking such a frame. I can do whole flower macros, and could probably do whole Acro macros well with it. I'm not sure I could get the flash right though. (I'd prefer something with TTL flash mode, but then again, wouldn't we all... Just have to win Lotto first, then I can indulge in taking 100s of 6x6 frames, and project them with a nice Mamiya 6 x 6 projector... That setup shouldn't set me back any more than... Oh, 15K...) But the Yashica does not allow one to get to 1:2 or 1:1 range...

No one else has any comments?
So far, people agree with me that it was a bit dark.
One found the top polyp cut-off annoying, another thought the speck was, another thought that the polyp highlight was blown out too much.
Compositionally, it might have been slightly too tight.
Anything else?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[DBW]

For me personally, it lacks a real focal point and the one that is there is off to the left/top.