Hurricane…not so close to the water as it looks! I like the light here…sand…white caps – Susan
Susan, it’s perspective. A photo is a 2D image and depth of field cannot be accurately gauged on a flat image. So yes, the waves looks closer and the effect is nice. There’s not much texture in the sky, but one can’t complain. You have a good shot of the kids. I presume the wind was not to fierce to be a danger.
The electrical box is not a bother Susan. It’s at the edge and not really in view. The upper corner is blurred. It is an example of shallow depth of field. The f-stop is 4.2 and not enough to keep focus on the whole gate. You can use this to your advantage. Here it’s a little distracting. The bricks are interesting. The wreathes are interesting. There’s not too much to tie this image together. I’d have focused on the details of the wreathes. Needs…work.
Susan emailed that she likes the play of the leaves’ shadows over the sculpture. Another recent news story about ‘love’ in Maine revolves around a one woman brothel run from a dance studio in southern Maine near to former President George Bush’s Maine compound. She shot video (of course) and the latest news is about who’s being ‘outed.’ This image is a lot more innocent. I actually like the vertical crop of this square sculpture. The subject is isolated and distracting background is kept to a minimum. The shadows do indeed add some interest. Good job Susan.
RYAN CHASING SEAGULLS HE JUST FED THEM GOLDFISH CRACKERS…SO THEY WERE EVERYWHERE!
That’s one way to get the gulls excited. Action! So there’s a choice, Susan. The image is about Ryan flying and copying the gull. If you crop the image and keep just the sand, Ryan, and the gull, it would be a sweet isolation shot. I’m not sure you need the boardwalk or the overexposed sky. Give it a try.
Susan shot Ryan chasing the gulls. Funny, they never catch them. If we could keep up, I’d have shot this one from face on. That would have been a good one. The joy of the moment is represented, though. I wish you could have run a little faster than the kid and the gull. But I doubt I could have done it either.
And before I posted the original, Susan sent me her cropped version. Isn’t it wonderful that she read my mind. Yes, indeed, it’s a stronger image. Good. It’s a real coincidence that her email arrived just moments before this post came out.
We were in a holding pattern at 15 feet to decompress before surfacing. No dice. I popped straight to the surface and couldn’t get my butt down for beans. So I hovered and shot this image. The light is brighter so the shutter speed is faster. There was just no way to coordinate and pose this feeding mass of black fish. Something was tasty on the reef. There’s not too much to love here. You can see an eye or two. The composition is … ugh. There’s not to much detail or color except for the blue edging. I have a lot of these images. I thought to show some mistakes, lest you believe everything comes out great.
Kevin has a thing about chipmunks. He hates them. It’s good he doesn’t have a gun. But Susan shot this one. The upper leaves are overexposed. It’s because there is too much dynamic range in the light. To make it simpler, the upper background is too bright. You can compensate in the camera. Usually the meter will under expose the chipmunk. In order to get everything to look naturally unnatural, you would shoot two images exposing for the light and dark. Or, you could shoot raw and manipulate in Photoshop. I’m less inclined to overthink the image. If you’ll notice the chipmunk is pretty dead center in the image. It tends to get that way when you don’t take time to compose because the critter will only be there a split second.
Stewart went wide angle on this shot. It’s still cute but is more cluttered in the background. Still cute. I would crop to a square. It’s stronger. And still cute, who wouldn’t agree when your daughter is in the image. Thanks for sharing this.
This image is interesting once again because of the contrast color of the blossoms. It’s not as strong as the last image because the cropping could be tighter. The image lacks a strong center point on which to settle. Is it the pink? Or, is it the center of one of the others that we should be focusing upon. What is it that we are being asked to notice? Good questions that might help to make this a stronger image. You could probably crop this post processing.
You come to New York City and you look up. Well, most people don’t (look up). Wide angle perspective and NY skyscrapers were meant for each other. It’s a great effect to emphasize the height. It is a quintessential look for New York. Good shot David. One would hardly mistake this view for any other city.
Technical: Canon EOS 7D, 1/160 sec, f3.5, focal length 10
It’s another wide angle capture for David. Perspective is always a decision made by the photographer. I have been caught as a lazy photographer who didn’t square up because I didn’t have time or I didn’t want to make the effort to square up against the tiles. A straight on look giving the wide angle fish eye effect its due, might have been a more effective image. I like the color. Once again daylight and incandescent is in conflict. It’s really an editorial decision that the photographer makes when deciding on the angle of view for the image. You should at least try different points of view. As I have said to myself, “It’s not a picture.” And then I didn’t pull the trigger.