Ortona, Italy

[holmes4]

RX100ii

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited June 20, 2018 by holmes4
Wrong camera

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Scenes like this are often improved by cropping closer. Determine which elements of the photo are the most representative of the scene and crop to make them more dominant. It's quite a common mistake to want to show everything you see in the photo but that weakens the impact. For instance, you don't have to show big areas of empty sky or empty water because the viewer fills that in in his mind.

[holmes4]

Thanks for the comment. I do that on some of my photos, but these are all travel photos and I don't tend to spend a lot of time on any single image. I may experiment with this one and see what I get. I do find cropping more effective on my A7R3 42MP shots than those like this with the RX100ii.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Well, cropping is always a good exercise. You learn things that go back into framing and composing.

[sixzeiss]

21 hours ago, holmes4 said:

Thanks for the comment. I do that on some of my photos, but these are all travel photos and I don't tend to spend a lot of time on any single image. I may experiment with this one and see what I get. I do find cropping more effective on my A7R3 42MP shots than those like this with the RX100ii.

Yup, nice photos on the Flickr!

[jamescooper]

I think, cropping is not always a good idea. It's a view. Come on! You should not miss any elements from the frame when capturing a view. I found your photo just perfect. 

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

15 hours ago, jamescooper said:

I think, cropping is not always a good idea. It's a view. Come on! You should not miss any elements from the frame when capturing a view. I found your photo just perfect. 

Photography is elimination. You can't show everything in a photo, so you have to decide what to eliminate. The more features you try to show, the less impact each feature has.

For illustration purposes, I (quickly) trimmed away features that don't add anything to the photo. What you are left with is the essence of the scene. The crop is easier to read and the brain will fill out the areas I trimmed off anyway. The brain knows that the sea and sky continue on.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited July 5, 2018 by Jaf-Photo

[Chrissie]

11 hours ago, Jaf-Photo said:

You can't show everything in a photo, so you have to decide what to eliminate.

With the advent of spherical panoramas like, for instance, this view from a mountain summit, this axiom seems to be crumbling  ;-)

But I agree, that this is at least an extension to the traditional notion of photography.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

2 hours ago, Chrissie said:

With the advent of spherical panoramas like, for instance, this view from a mountain summit, this axiom seems to be crumbling  ?

But I agree, that this is at least an extension to the traditional notion of photography.

Panoramas aren't good photographs. They are mementos at best and gimmicks at worst.

There were analogue panorama cameras and fisheye lenses as well, so it's nothing new. It's been around for 50 years.

Photographers (real ones) who shoot mountain scenes often use a perspective that is closer to a normal focal length or a tele. It's the amateurs who crack out the ultra wide lens.

Trust me when I say that photography is about elimination and that the beginner's mistake is to try to show everything.

The worse someone is at composing photographs, the wider lens they use. Why? Because they don't have to eliminate.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Jaf-Photo

[sixzeiss]

Now what should I do? I've spend 1000's to take a vacation and I get a shot, its not perfect, what what can I do ... this is the only chance I'm going to get. Turn Pro and camp out for a month ... or take the shot in a way that will let me capture that moment, remember it, and perhaps share it.

Holms did a smart thing, he captured a scene with perfectly aligned horizon, that means he can crop pretty much however he wants and the resultant image will look OK. If you are capable of thinking outside 3:2 or 4:3 ... then you might do the crop which is attached. OK ... might not win a prize ... but already I feel like I've seen this sunset before ... the story of this image is that they build the city along the ridge, overlooking the harbour ... sure the left is a bit dull, but so too are the other crops which have been presented here, which tell no story and are empty for at least a third of the frame.

I think this one is marginally better, all things considered. Holms is awesome, whereever is his, I want to visit!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited July 6, 2018 by sixzeiss
Is wherever one word? or two?

[Chrissie]

6 hours ago, Jaf-Photo said:

Panoramas aren't good photographs.

Jaf, you seem to be a friend of radical statements, and as such, you will draw contradictions. Which you probably are aware of.

I'm not going to fall into that trap and pick a fight with you. I perceive panorama photography as a technical challenge, and I'm proud of having come this far in mastering it. Although I acknowledge that there is still a long way to go on that field. And your radical nullification of any those attempts will not reduce my pride in having accomplished these.

Granted, the selection of the perfect crop I'm perfectly evading. On purpose! This is indeed part of my intention. As such, your criticism only reinforces my ambition. ?

Having mentioned the technical challenges, I do acknowledge that artistical challenges may well be on a completely different level. Which I will tackle once I feel comfortable on the technical level - so stay tuned! ?

 

 

[sixzeiss]

Chrissie, your panorama shows what is great about modern photography! It is an immersive image which gives an effect which simply cannot be achieved by traditional means.

I've done similar things, stitching many images together, and the effect is so overwhelming ... its possible to see details which my "naked eye" simply can't percieve ... and the effect is somehow much more realistic than a single shot.

Its not for everyone, apparently, but keep it up!

[Chrissie]

16 minutes ago, sixzeiss said:

which gives an effect which simply cannot be achieved by traditional means.

It seems like we are approaching the very core of why all of us are pursuing photography at all. Which may be a different one for every one of us. It can be very rewarding to exchange on the different aspects of this - at best. I would like to be inspired by different approaches to this endeavor, rather than be put down by limited views.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

2 hours ago, Chrissie said:

Jaf, you seem to be a friend of radical statements, and as such, you will draw contradictions. Which you probably are aware of.

I'm not going to fall into that trap and pick a fight with you. I perceive panorama photography as a technical challenge, and I'm proud of having come this far in mastering it. Although I acknowledge that there is still a long way to go on that field. And your radical nullification of any those attempts will not reduce my pride in having accomplished these.

Granted, the selection of the perfect crop I'm perfectly evading. On purpose! This is indeed part of my intention. As such, your criticism only reinforces my ambition. ?

Having mentioned the technical challenges, I do acknowledge that artistical challenges may well be on a completely different level. Which I will tackle once I feel comfortable on the technical level - so stay tuned! ?

 

 

Everyone goes through a phase with wide angle lenses. The important thing is to understand why and what it does to your photography.

The purpose of a photo isn't to show everything you see. The purpose is to show the most important things you see. You achieve that with composition, i.e. by deciding what you can eliminate. The wide angle lens lets you cram everything into a photo, so you are not eliminating and therefore you are not composing. Don't get stuck with the wide angle lens for too long, if you are learning photography, because you won't learn to compose.

Regardning the so-called radical statements, well, it's simple. First you have to accept and understand the main principle; after that you can learn the exceptions.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Jaf-Photo

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

2 hours ago, Chrissie said:

It seems like we are approaching the very core of why all of us are pursuing photography at all. Which may be a different one for every one of us. It can be very rewarding to exchange on the different aspects of this - at best. I would like to be inspired by different approaches to this endeavor, rather than be put down by limited views.

The traditional, high-end version of a panorama is the triptych. You take three images of a scene. Each image is perfectly formed and composed. When you view them side-by-side they form a seamless panorama. That takes a lot more skill than using any panorama function or stitching software.

Good photographers have been doing triptychs since the dawn of photography.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Jaf-Photo

[Chrissie]

On 7/6/2018 at 10:27 PM, Jaf-Photo said:

The purpose of a photo isn't to show everything you see. The purpose is to show the most important things you see.

Jaf, fortunately it's not you who gets to define what the purpose of my photographs is. I'm doing this in order to document what I have seen, in a given situation, as neutral and "true" as possible. To let people share my experience. Sometimes I too want to emphasize things, but certainly not when I'm doing spherical panoramas.

Spherical panoramas are, as you may be aware of, nowadays heavily used commercially in real estate presentations. And I can assure you: the prospective buyers do not want to be presented with a "selective" view of what the current owner considers to be the "most important" traits of an object.

If you climb a mountain and get the rare chance to enjoy a view all around yourself of 100km+, then what's the point of selecting any single one of the hundreds of summits all around you? In that case you want the viewer to be as overwhelmed as you were yourself. And this will certainly not happen through selection.

You, on the other hand,  seem to prefer imposing your selective views on others - that's fine with me, if it makes you feel good. If you want to make a living out of this, I hope the viewers of your works share your preference.

[Chrissie]

On 7/6/2018 at 10:57 PM, Jaf-Photo said:

The traditional, high-end version of a panorama is the triptych. You take three images of a scene. Each image is perfectly formed and composed. When you view them side-by-side they form a seamless panorama.

Jaf, are you serious??!!

Do you really want to compare a fully immersive 360° by 180° seamless panorama, covering every conceivable angle of view, with the three-part 2D (i.e.: flat)  images of former artists, which were never meant to (nor were in the least capable of) conveying ALL of a scene?

You seem obsessed with the notion of "selection", because what you call "traditional" photography could never deliver anything else other than selection.

I would rather call this "legacy" style.

What you are trying to downplay is happening at the fringes of "traditional" photography. By turning photography digital, it can and does profit from the computational power of contemporary hardware plus advanced mathematical knowledge which former artists ("for ages") did not have at their disposal. And which apparently neither your formal education as a photographer nor your professional experience as such seem to have come in any contact with.

With your claims, you are opening yourself up to embarrassing and easy defeat, which I'm not interested in.

Trust me: you can't win at that.

 

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

There is no point in trying to correct this tirade of fallacies. What has happened in photography in the last few years is that people have stopped looking, listening and learning. Instead, they use some auto-functions, filters and software; suddenly believe they are better than Ansel Adams. It's just a passing phase, like anything else devoid of quality.

[Singingsnapper]

On 7/6/2018 at 12:18 PM, Jaf-Photo said:

Panoramas aren't good photographs. They are mementos at best and gimmicks at worst.

There were analogue panorama cameras and fisheye lenses as well, so it's nothing new. It's been around for 50 years.

Photographers (real ones) who shoot mountain scenes often use a perspective that is closer to a normal focal length or a tele. It's the amateurs who crack out the ultra wide lens.

Trust me when I say that photography is about elimination and that the beginner's mistake is to try to show everything.

The worse someone is at composing photographs, the wider lens they use. Why? Because they don't have to eliminate.

In YOUR opinion of course.  Stop preaching.  

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

48 minutes ago, Singingsnapper said:

In YOUR opinion of course.  Stop preaching.  

Too close to the bone, obviously.

[Singingsnapper]

6 hours ago, Jaf-Photo said:

Too close to the bone, obviously.

???  Like I care about what an opinionated non photographer thinks?  Stroll on!

You must be such a wonderful photographer to be able to state opinion as fact.  Wait, you haven't held any of your images to scrutiny here.  Not one.

You have no credibility and are talking like a troll.  

 

Let's see you demonstrate your superior ability with your own images rather than rocking up giving your opinions as if they are museum level facts.  

 

Oh and you'll need a bigger dustpan to pick up those sweeping statements.  

Edited July 9, 2018 by Singingsnapper

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

1 hour ago, Singingsnapper said:

???  Like I care about what an opinionated non photographer thinks?  Stroll on!

You must be such a wonderful photographer to be able to state opinion as fact.  Wait, you haven't held any of your images to scrutiny here.  Not one.

You have no credibility and are talking like a troll.  

 

Let's see you demonstrate your superior ability with your own images rather than rocking up giving your opinions as if they are museum level facts.  

 

Oh and you'll need a bigger dustpan to pick up those sweeping statements.  

First of all, apologies to Holmes for the way this thread has turned out.

Second, if you are upset by my general comments, try submitting your photos professionally. In retrospect, I think you'd find my comments positively charming.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Jaf-Photo

[Singingsnapper]

13 minutes ago, Jaf-Photo said:

First of all, apologies to Holmes for the way this thread has turned out.

Second, if you are upset by my general comments, try submitting your photos professionally. In retrospect, I think you'd find my comments positively charming.

Instead of trolling, why not show us your expertise?  Until you do, you have no credibility.  You're just a person who can talk the talk but doesn't walk the walk.  Until you do your opinions have no value to me at all.