|

Invitation to Comment

A forum to post any lighthouse pictures you'd like others to see. Feel free to talk about lighthouse photography. Lighthouse-related photos (such as LSS and lenses) are also welcome.

Postby Grover1 » Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:06 pm


The Daily Aztec featured this photo by Anna Chevurant and asked its readers to comment ....

Image
Believe those who search for the truth ...
Doubt those who find it ...
User avatar
Grover1
Lighthouse God
 
Posts: 5999
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 12:00 am
Location: God's Square Mile

Postby LighthouseNews » Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:29 pm


Sooo...did you? :twisted:
User avatar
LighthouseNews
Head Keeper
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:00 am
Location: Midcoast Maine

Postby Grover1 » Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:06 pm


Hi Sue ...

No ... thought I would let the members here vicariously take up the challenge ... but if I did?

Im torn between the critical eye developed from vieiwng the work of all the usual suspects here with the fact that some very normal person saw a pretty light in a gorgeous setting and snapped off shot ... Overall I liked the feel of the picture ... but I gotta think if those people werent in the lower left ... if the golf cart wasnt by the shack ... and if the overall shot was sharpened a tad to make that beautiful lens more visible ... a good picture would have been a spectacular picture ...

... and that's just from my eye ...
Believe those who search for the truth ...
Doubt those who find it ...
User avatar
Grover1
Lighthouse God
 
Posts: 5999
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 12:00 am
Location: God's Square Mile

Postby wheland » Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:27 am


Barry,

I'll agree with the sharpness comment but I have no problem with the people in the picture.

I will say that while it is nice to get completely clean shots of any subject I have no problem with people in a lighthouse shot- unless they are blocking the lighthouse and even then it's not always a bad thing. i know there are many who don't agree with this opinion.

You could also easily crop out all the "offending" elements other than the sharpness which could be helped a bit with the right photo program.

I guess one objection I have to all of this "helping" is that it takes something real and turns it into something that doesn't really exist. This is a good thing and a bad thing- it makes it harder to believe any photographic evidence one is shown.

I can go either way with the golf cart, though I'd say the photo would look better if it was off to the side or gone completely.

Dennis
User avatar
wheland
Inspector
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Trenton,NJ

Postby MontaukPoint » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:22 pm


First of all, straighten the horizon! :wink:

While I do find it pleasing, there is nothing really "special" about it: it is just a normal shot (composition-wise). Perhaps the shooter could try some crops. As for the "disturbing elements", they can be cloned out with photoshop easily enough.

Alan
-----
Lighthousing.net Administrator

Lighthouse Photography and More:
http://www.alanbotphotography.com
User avatar
MontaukPoint
LH.net Administrator
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:00 am
Location: Burlington, Ontario

Postby Bill Edwards » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:54 pm


It is a basic shot, nice for what it is. I believe in "editing in the camera" as much as possible. My suggestion is to put the tower in the left half of the frame, so you are already cropping out the house and the people in the viewfinder. That also gives you a greater view of the water and the contour of the land as it appears to slope down to the shoreline in the right-hand corner. Gives you the feel that the lighthouse is overlooking its' kingdom. (Too much?) The more you can do at the time of taking the photo, the less to be done with it later. That also spares the chance of any loss of quality in post-production tricks.

For what it is worth... I'm a TV news photographer by trade and a still photographer by hobby. So, any changes "after the fact" goes against my religion. [-X
User avatar
Bill Edwards
Keeper
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 1:00 am
Location: On the left coast.

Postby wheland » Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:11 pm


MontaukPoint wrote:First of all, straighten the horizon! :wink:

While I do find it pleasing, there is nothing really "special" about it: it is just a normal shot (composition-wise). Perhaps the shooter could try some crops. As for the "disturbing elements", they can be cloned out with photoshop easily enough.

Alan


And what pray tell is wrong with that? It's just an average photo- horrors. Every photo does not need to be photo contest winner worthy.

While the photo may not please the pro and semi-pro photoghraphers here and elsewhere i'm sure it looks just fine to many people.

Dennis
User avatar
wheland
Inspector
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Trenton,NJ

Postby Rob143 » Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:58 pm


MontaukPoint wrote:First of all, straighten the horizon! :wink:

While I do find it pleasing, there is nothing really "special" about it: it is just a normal shot (composition-wise). Perhaps the shooter could try some crops. As for the "disturbing elements", they can be cloned out with photoshop easily enough.

Alan


Amen! That horizon jumps out at you.

I'm trying to figure out what they focused on. This midday shot on a sunny day was overexposed but even with that I look at the detail around the entrance to the tower and see no sharpness. Barry's golf cart the same. That could be a product of taking this shot straight out of a digital camera and doing no post-processing but not entirely. I played around with this in photoshop and still don't see much there. There is a difference between adjustments to a digital image to produce an image that looks like what you shot, and manipulating reality. Everything I've ever seen out of a digital without any PP looks flat, soft, and uninspiring. At the very minimum you should be considering a levels adjustment and some degree of sharpening.

I corrected the horizon, did a levels adjustment, and the tiniest s curve and it looks better. It's still an ok mid-day snapshot though.

Although that rule of thirds is not gospel, and often doesn't work neatly with subjects like lighthouses, this dead centered tower doesn't work either. Composing differently as was already suggested with the light lower left looking out over the water might have worked a lot better.
User avatar
Rob143
Head Keeper
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Carlisle, PA

Postby Rob143 » Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:38 pm


Dennis,

Barry invited comment. People commented. The earth may not be flat, as was believed many moons ago, but the horizon in a shot like that should be.
User avatar
Rob143
Head Keeper
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Carlisle, PA

Postby wheland » Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:46 pm


Rob143 wrote:Dennis,

Barry invited comment. People commented. The earth may not be flat, as was believed many moons ago, but the horizon in a shot like that should be.


I understand that Barry invited comment- and that's what I'm doing. I'm just commenting a bit differently than some others- consider it a different perspective if you will - or if you won't.
:D

Dennis
User avatar
wheland
Inspector
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Trenton,NJ

Postby LighthouseNews » Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:56 pm


I agree about the horizon, but at least the tower is semi-straight. :? Too often when looking for photos, I'll find the tower is leaning, while the horizon is flat. And I'm not talking about those who think it's "arty" to take a shot on its side. :roll:

Image
Photo by c@rljones

FWIW, I'd have also been on the other side of the path taking the shot and not photographed the other buildings, people, etc. I think it would have been good to let the path lead the eye to the light, but that's just me. And no, it wouldn't have been centered. I'd have tried different heights too, until I got a fairly decent shot.

And remember, I'm only an amateur, so my thoughts don't come anywhere near yours. But I do have to say the colors are gorgeous. That's the first thing that I thought about it, before the tilted horizon interfered.
User avatar
LighthouseNews
Head Keeper
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:00 am
Location: Midcoast Maine

Postby MontaukPoint » Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:53 pm


wheland wrote:
MontaukPoint wrote:First of all, straighten the horizon! :wink:

While I do find it pleasing, there is nothing really "special" about it: it is just a normal shot (composition-wise). Perhaps the shooter could try some crops. As for the "disturbing elements", they can be cloned out with photoshop easily enough.

Alan


And what pray tell is wrong with that? It's just an average photo- horrors. Every photo does not need to be photo contest winner worthy.

While the photo may not please the pro and semi-pro photoghraphers here and elsewhere i'm sure it looks just fine to many people.

Dennis


I agree with Rob. We were invited to comment, and I did. Did I EVER say it was a bad photo? No. I offered my opinions as an photography enthusiast: take it or leave it. No one here is forcing you to accept my what I said. If you like an average photo, that is great, but don't go off at me for offering constructive criticism when it was invited (towards something that you didn't even take, none-the-less) 8O .
-----
Lighthousing.net Administrator

Lighthouse Photography and More:
http://www.alanbotphotography.com
User avatar
MontaukPoint
LH.net Administrator
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:00 am
Location: Burlington, Ontario

Postby wheland » Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:40 pm


MontaukPoint wrote:
wheland wrote:
MontaukPoint wrote:First of all, straighten the horizon! :wink:

While I do find it pleasing, there is nothing really "special" about it: it is just a normal shot (composition-wise). Perhaps the shooter could try some crops. As for the "disturbing elements", they can be cloned out with photoshop easily enough.

Alan


And what pray tell is wrong with that? It's just an average photo- horrors. Every photo does not need to be photo contest winner worthy.

While the photo may not please the pro and semi-pro photoghraphers here and elsewhere i'm sure it looks just fine to many people.

Dennis


I agree with Rob. We were invited to comment, and I did. Did I EVER say it was a bad photo? No. I offered my opinions as an photography enthusiast: take it or leave it. No one here is forcing you to accept my what I said. If you like an average photo, that is great, but don't go off at me for offering constructive criticism when it was invited (towards something that you didn't even take, none-the-less) 8O .


I did the same that you did- I made my comments as asked. I tried to explain my comments - i didn't go off as you say on anyone.

It has nothing to do with if I took it or not- you didn't either. We were both commenting on something as we were asked. I was unaware that that precluded commenting on the comments. I'm glad you've pointed this out to me. I'll try and get it right in the future for you.

I now know the parameters of comments allowed.

Seriously- my basic point is something that has been voiced here before by myself and others- different people see a photo differently. This is most evident when someone is a "serious" or pro photoghrapher and their view is compared to a casual photoghrapher or just an observor of things.

I admit to not being that serious of a photographer but I know ehat I like and what I don't like in the arts- photography and others.



Dennis
User avatar
wheland
Inspector
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Trenton,NJ

Postby MontaukPoint » Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:01 pm


I did the same that you did- I made my comments as asked. I tried to explain my comments - i didn't go off as you say on anyone.

It has nothing to do with if I took it or not- you didn't either. We were both commenting on something as we were asked. I was unaware that that precluded commenting on the comments. I'm glad you've pointed this out to me. I'll try and get it right in the future for you.

I now know the parameters of comments allowed.

Seriously- my basic point is something that has been voiced here before by myself and others- different people see a photo differently. This is most evident when someone is a "serious" or pro photoghrapher and their view is compared to a casual photoghrapher or just an observor of things.

I admit to not being that serious of a photographer but I know ehat I like and what I don't like in the arts- photography and others.


You quoted my message, thereby directing your comments at me, hence "going off" at me - or did you hit the quote button instead of the reply button? :wink: . I mentioned that you did not take the photo, because you seem extremely defensive about it: don't try to paint me as the aggressor. It is fine that you want to offer CC, but do not post it in response to my comments (and with a mocking/sarcastic tone, to boot) to avoid a conflict like this in the future.

Alan
-----
Lighthousing.net Administrator

Lighthouse Photography and More:
http://www.alanbotphotography.com
User avatar
MontaukPoint
LH.net Administrator
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:00 am
Location: Burlington, Ontario

Postby wheland » Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:45 pm


MontaukPoint wrote:
I did the same that you did- I made my comments as asked. I tried to explain my comments - i didn't go off as you say on anyone.

It has nothing to do with if I took it or not- you didn't either. We were both commenting on something as we were asked. I was unaware that that precluded commenting on the comments. I'm glad you've pointed this out to me. I'll try and get it right in the future for you.

I now know the parameters of comments allowed.

Seriously- my basic point is something that has been voiced here before by myself and others- different people see a photo differently. This is most evident when someone is a "serious" or pro photoghrapher and their view is compared to a casual photoghrapher or just an observor of things.

I admit to not being that serious of a photographer but I know ehat I like and what I don't like in the arts- photography and others.


You quoted my message, thereby directing your comments at me, hence "going off" at me - or did you hit the quote button instead of the reply button? :wink: . I mentioned that you did not take the photo, because you seem extremely defensive about it: don't try to paint me as the aggressor. It is fine that you want to offer CC, but do not post it in response to my comments (and with a mocking/sarcastic tone, to boot) to avoid a conflict like this in the future.

Alan


Well I'll attempt to make my point clearer for you.

I did not go off on you- if you term my prose as going off you have a very low tolerance for disagreement. I did use your post in my quote. I did not mistakenly click on the wrong button. (Wink all you want) .

I used your post to answer your point and the point made in the post you were taking on in your comment.

I'm sorry I did not know only certain tones were allowed when discussing things with you. I'll bear that in mind in the future.

I find it curious that at the same time you send me a private message you feel it is required to instruct me online as to how I should converse with you.

I will however accord you one thing- I'll refrain from speaking any more about this particular topic so as to not upset you any more. Sorry to have caused you any distress.

Dennis
User avatar
wheland
Inspector
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Trenton,NJ

Next

Return to Lighthouse Photography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron