|
|
|
Surajit Mukerji
{K:3889} 4/13/2003
|
well done Chris
|
|
|
|
|
Kim Culbert
{K:37070} 5/23/2002
|
Wow, this looks like an optical illusion... tiny little soldiers placed in a huge fort. Has a very interesting look to it, and I think what you've managed here is very cool.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Whaley
{K:3847} 7/11/2001
|
This looks too cool....almost like Toy Soldiers in a way....like the editing you did...skill and knowledge on the computer...another tool in the toolbox. Glad the commentary kept running or I would have missed this photo. Great work.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Hayward
{K:1519} 7/11/2001
|
To everyone - didn't ruffle any of my feathers - and actually I think the
discussion although long winded was useful. It does point out that we
may need to have a comment block that mentions the post processing.
After all, we record (sometimes) the film that we use, the aperature,
the shutter speed and the lens. At least in this case, the post processing
that was done is at least as important as the camera details.
|
|
|
|
Larry J. Rhodes
{K:2441} 7/11/2001
|
Okay, this is my last post on this picture. :) I'll shut up after this. It would seem from reading the rest of the comments on here that I opened Pandora's box with my first post on this photograph. My intentions were in NO WAY to berate or belittle this picture. I hope no one else thought so. If so, I sincerely apologize. I just noticed something about the photograph, and I was intrigued, and simply wanted to satisfy my curiosity about it. Again, I found it to be an interesting effect, and I wanted to know if it had been edited in photoshop, because I became really interested in trying this myself to get more pleasing results from some of my own pictures. I didn't mean to put you on the spot at ALL, Chris, and I don't want to ruffle any feathers here. It was an honest, nonjudgemental question, and I'm glad you posted your response on how you did it, because I wanna try it out too. :) To the rest of you, I also hope I didn't offend you in any way. Take care, and I look forward to hearing from all of you in the future on the pictures that are posted at this site! :)
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Hayward
{K:1519} 7/10/2001
|
The defense rests.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Hayward
{K:1519} 7/10/2001
|
On why it was edited --
Without editing the background was pretty sharp and I thought it was
too distracting. I decided that with the sharp background
it was a mediocre photo and that if I had shot it wide open, it might have
been a good photo. It seemed worth checking out (to see if a DOF control
could have made the difference). If one were sufficiently
skilled in photoshop, it seems like the DOF effect should be able to be
approximated -- obviously I didn't completely succeed -- this time.
I may even try some A/B tests (real DOF vs simulated
DOF) and see what it takes.
As Vlad says, its better to get it perfectly on film the first time -- saves
lots of time in the darkroom or on the computer. And it also eliminates
the possibility of messing up on the post processing or producing an
image that couldn't really exist. But once the event is over if the record
is worthy, we may have to fix the existing problems -- maybe minor
dust spotting - maybe something more major.
Anyway, that was what was going through my mind. It is on the push
line for edits that I am comfortable with -- but it verified my initial thought
that with a shallow DOF, it could have been good. If you are still interested
in the unedited photo I can post it.
|
|
|
|
|
e.v.sreekumar
{K:15} 7/10/2001
|
Dear Chris,
Its definitely aa good composition but I am sorry to
say that you have tampered with the photo in the background where there is an immediate blurring.
I am sorry to say this, but I wonder why did you do
it? Why did you not leave it as it is. It would have
been a good photograph.
sreekumar/India
|
|
|
|
|
Larry J. Rhodes
{K:2441} 7/9/2001
|
Chris,
I'm not that big of a stickler about editing photographs to make them look better. I do it...it's necessary. And what you did in this picture gives it a VERY interesting look. I was pleased by it. And, seriously, doing something like this is, in my opinion, no different than color correcting a photograph to make it look nicer. It's a necessary part of photography. And now we have technology that lets anyone do this themselves from the comfort of sitting in front of their computer. :) The only types of photo editing I don't like is adding elements from one photograph to another to make it APPEAR as if the real-life situation was somehow different than it really was. Like taking a picture of a wasp and pasting in a fly in such a way as to make it look like the wasp has caught a good meal. Unless it's to be used for advertising or another specific purpose, such editing should not be done, in my opinion. "Truth in photography" SHOULD be adhered to in most instances, but changing such things as DOF, lighting, contrast, etc. should be used by people who need to do so without having to worry about being railed at. It's no different than cropping an image in the darkroom to make a more pleasing composition. And the ONLY reason I believe people should really strive for great composition while actually taking a picture is that, the less you have to crop later, the sharper your enlargements will be, because you don't have to enlarge so MUCH. Just my two cents. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Hayward
{K:1519} 7/9/2001
|
Larry -
Actually no, you can comment on the composition. What I
meant to say is that this isn't entirely grab -- I did
get my chance to choose a position.
But as far as the background -- I'm busted! The DOF is
as you say the result of editing -- which is a philosophical
point that no doubt will receive some debate. My philosophy
(at the current time) is that one strives to set up
the shots so that they are perfect without cropping,
burning, or more advanced editing. Sort of a test of
skill but also because viewers have traditionally expected
photographs to represent an instant in time and space that
was actually experienced by the photographer. However, once
the film is exposed, one sometimes (as I did) tries to
modify the photo to be more expressive - or to correct
technical problems (in this case shooting with a stopped
down lens). I ran a blurr filter over the background to
get rid of a lot of distraction feeling as I did so like
someone setting up a magazine ad rather than a photographer.
I think it worked -- but next time it will be done with the
lens.
Incidently -- that was a good work spotting the processing.
-- chris
|
|
|
|
|
Robert McDonald
{K:511} 7/9/2001
|
Chris-nice shot there ,its different, I like it
|
|
|
|
|
Artie Colantuono
{K:12275} 7/9/2001
|
very well done Chris
|
|
|
|
|
Larry J. Rhodes
{K:2441} 7/9/2001
|
Okay, so I don't need to comment on the composition. *chuckle* This is an insteresting looking picture. The DOF suddenly seems to drop off in the background, rather than doing so gradually, as I'm used to seeing. It makes the people look much sharper, and almost as if they ARE standing out from the background. I couldn't find your original image for comparison, so I must ask. Is this DOF the result of editing? It sort of looks like it, judging by the feathered edges around the men. Again, it's an interesting effect. :)
|
|
0 
