Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/10/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ted - Thanks again for the detailed notes. No rebuttal here - just a couple of comments in response. (snip) You commented: >2: I tried cropping some off the right side almost half way through >the arch making it a vertical and it seemed to strengthen the feel >and look, rather than a near square composition. And it eliminated >the far right arch support hanging too close to the edge. > >It isn't as good as N0.1 because in that case there's direct eye >contact to the statue and not just a person standing on a light "X" >marks the spot of light at her feet gazing into a void. Now that's >not saying she isn't looking at something... it's just how it looks, >certainly when you ompare it to No.1 that's right on the mark. This one actually is a strong vertical as posted. I cropped it as shown because I wanted to keep the complete cross of light at her feet and the two angular light bars pointing towards her. I had hoped that her intense concentration on her audio guide would come through on her face and make the shot, but it sounds like it didn't. >3: Nice light but it looks like you said.... "go stand over there" >click! Absolutely static. Like she might as well have been a statue. >What about a moment when she at least took a drink of her >MacDonald's coffee mug? Or her head uplifted to catch a few rays on >the face? A nice kind of sunlit profile. OK so maybe she's a >complete stranger, as I suppose she was..... but it's called ___ see >the possibility and wait!___ > Understood. Earlier I did post an alternate with her head tilted slightly upward but the comments I got back were that the overall composition was not as effective. Here's the alternate. http://gallery.leica-users.org/NYC/06_01_0176_alt_crop2b_web > >4: Nit picking comment first.... "you didn't hold the camera >straight!" This kind of point as nit picking as it is, actually does >make one a better photographer in handling their equipment. Why? >Because it means in the future when shooting we do observe how we >hold the camera and make corrections before we press the shutter >release. True! Yes, yes, yes!!!! I am so bugged by sloping horizons and canting verticals I don't know how I missed the tilt here and in the photo later on. Part of the problem is that since I am 6'5 I often tilt the camera down to shoot without thinking. I have to remember not to do that - and not to rotate it either. Thanks for the reminder. (snip) >8: And you did it again! You didn't hold the camera straight! look >at the stone work and the far side and you didn't line up the >vertical lines when composing . Which you obviously did here using >the wall as a lead into the people. > (snip) >If I have a bit of a question it's the people feel a little tight to >the right hand border line. Not only that I felt it "might have been >better if you'd changed the angle slightly so they were more to the >left side and your camera showed more of what's missing to the right? > >Now remember I wasn't there, so this is merely a thought. I imagine >if it had of made a solid photograph you'd have shot it in both >fashions. Right? ;-) Somebody's fanny intruded and was cropped out. I feel the people are too far to the right, too. I did get one vertical shot of the near gal before she moved but didn't feel it was as strong a composition as the one I posted, but maybe it does work: http://gallery.leica-users.org/NYC/04_09_0296_web (snip) >I trust this has been helpful and if people feel it is I'll >endeavour to do some again along similar lines. On the other hand if >it was a pointless exercise on my part so be it, as I can easily >hang-up the key board without any bad feelings. Besides I'm a pic & >pic two finger typer. > >ted > It certainly has been helpful Ted. Anytime you feel like sending bad news, or good, my way just hop on the opportunity. -- Regards, Dick