|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 12/19/2008
|
Thanks once again, Vandi!
I assume you mean the crop for Stan, or am I mistaken?
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Vandy Neculae
{K:7990} 12/18/2008
|
Excellent shot, Nick.
I like especially your first crop.
Vandi
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 12/15/2008
|
What an idea! Floating! And what a knowledge about the dependence of look on such seemingly indifferent operations, Ian!
I dropped the aspect by a combination of scaling height (only) and cropping. And it really starts floating over the surface of the backgrouns. (Attachment.) Stunning!
Well, I must say, this is what I would name real dealing with photography. I'd expect such an insight from most people participating to such a forum but I am glad that at least some of them have really that insight!
Thanks a bunch!
Nick
|
Scaled height and cropped a bit tighter after Ian's ideas. |
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 12/14/2008
|
Indeed Stan, it's like getting more and more ideas and knowledge for free. It's like attending lectures in some kind of virtual photographic university and chosing completely free what to do next. There is no "secrets for the gurus" and similar things, so it is also quite transparent.
The politicians bubble since decades about how to introduce more transparency, and they achieved 0.nothing. Perhaps some of them should visit this site, since we have that already at no cost. ;-)
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Ian McIntosh
{K:42997} 12/14/2008
|
yup, that's what I was thinking but maybe the aspect would need to drop a bit. I was thinking of making it float.
The shadow is an issue for a tight crop.
|
|
|
|
Stan Hill
{K:35352} 12/13/2008
|
I liked all of the options that you explored. We all see things in different ways and that keeps it fresh. Thanks for your different perspectives as well.
Be well, Stan
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 12/13/2008
|
Thanks a lot Ian!
Another different idea, the third one after Stan/Fabio and Dave. But I have to ask you, do you mean rotating the whole image 90° clockwise (attachment), or only rotating the shell and leaving all the rest unchanged?
Cheers!
Nick
|
Rotated 90° clockwise (hopefully) as Ian suggested |
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 12/13/2008
|
Thanks a lot for transferring me his UF-coordinates and message, Harry. I wish the USA would remember its own great people. Until now that country is really very very far away from what it was thought for. It must find back to its own values, and for that such great thoughts like this own have to be read and examined by logical thinking.
In exchange I transfer to you a simple statement of a taxi-driver in Greece:
"In a democracy of business cards a human being cannot live."
Cheers!
Nikc
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 12/13/2008
|
Thanks a lot Dave!
So now I have two different ways for a possible bettering. One is the more centered view, as suggested by Stan and Fabio. The other is the opposite as you suggest. I think your suggestion is more "breaking our of the typical shot". I tried to mimic the results of a hypothetical different perpective and placement and I think that your approach would have deliver the less macro-like and (for me) much more interesting result. (Attachment) Of course such an afterward alteration doesn't show really what the shot would have been, but it helps getting an idea. So I really have to try it out this way too!
Thanks a lot again!
Nick
|
Changed perspective/placement after Dave's ideas |
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 12/12/2008
|
Square crop... Yes!!! That's it! The squre is such a good container for the "circle" of the ammonite! Great and thanks a lot for that idea, Fabio!
This implicitly agrees also with Stan's consoderation about the ammonite near the center of the image. I guess you meant the ammonite in the center too?? Anyway, I add an attachment woth your idea for a crop, but still the remaining problem is, what to do with the shadow? An ammonite in the center would mean that the shadow must be cut off of the ammonite is big enough. On the other hand of the it is smalle so that the shadow fits too, then so many details will vanish too.
Anyway, the attachment is really fine in its geometrical appearance. Not my intention at all, as it is then more similar to the typical flat macro, but it looks good!
About the overexposed places, sure they are there. As long as the ammonite is the main interest I must accept them. A bit less exposure would also mean in this case a less rich contrast between lights and shadows of the patterns on the ammonite. Still this is a conjecture, not a theorem, and so I'll have to find out by trying again.
Thanks a bunch for the good ideas!!!
Nick
|
Cropped after Fabio's idea |
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 12/12/2008
|
I must be the champion in the discipline of forgetting to attach the attachments! :-D
Cheers!
Nick
|
Crpopped it after Stan's ideas for bringing the shell nearer the center (vertically) |
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 12/12/2008
|
Thanks a lot for the ideas and the comment, Stan!
Well, should I place it more near the center? I think that is is approxomately in the center between right and left, but not as much between top and bottom. So, perhaps something like on the attachment? But the again, something is "missing" on the attachment, or do I miss something?
Perhaps this: What is the subject that shluld be more near the center? The ammonite alone or the ammonite together with its shadow? The shadow is of course "something" but not as "something" as the ammonite. (Am I confused again!)
Certainly a macro is about details, it is about defining the object rather than the scene. But this here is not a real macro, is it? It has a single object in focus but the "scene" (the paper beneith) ist still a part of it. And so some few considerations have to be done about the placement in combination with that shadow or without it.
I still don't know what the real object is here, that is. You take only the ammonite and something is missing, you take it with its shadow and something is too much. Twisted.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 12/12/2008
|
Thanks a lot, Indranil!
Do you mean "framing" as composition (what you see in the viewfinder) or the physical frame around the image? The latter Intry to keep really very simple.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Ian McIntosh
{K:42997} 12/12/2008
|
I wonder about rotating 90 clockwise
the distance and apeture may be right on the money, the 3d is cool
|
|
|
|
Wolf Zorrito
{K:78768} 12/12/2008
|
Another great greek UF user send me the following quote:
" Comment: 'I believe that ba.nking instit.utions are more dange.rous to our lib.erties than standi.ng arm.ies. If the .Ame.rican peo.ple ever allow pr.ivate ba.nks to co.ntrol the is.sue of their curr.ency, first by inf.lation, then by
defla.tion, the ban.ks and corp.orations that will grow up around the ba.nks will depr.ive the peo.ple of all prope.rty un.til their chi.ldren wake-up home.less on the conti.nent their fath.ers conqu.ered.' Thom.as Jeffe.rson 1802
"
I hope this wise countryman of yours will talk to you !
|
|
|
|
Dave Stacey
{K:150877} 12/12/2008
|
The details and tone is good, Nick, but I agree a less centered composition might be better, and maybe a different perspective.
Dave.
|
|
|
|
|
Fabio Keiner
{K:81109} 12/11/2008
|
no, I would chose a square crop and the ammonite centered... and avoid some white overburns :))
|
|
|
|
|
Stan Hill
{K:35352} 12/11/2008
|
For the subject I think the composition works best with the subject near center, it is the subject. For macro one is concentrating on the close details not composition of that object. Just my humble opinion. I like the details of this and the strong light is good for this.
Be well, Stan
|
|
|
|
Indranil Ray
{K:5050} 12/11/2008
|
That one also excellent lighting and composition. Specially I really like your framings.
Cheers!
Indranil
|
|
0 
