[matthew]

Bump on a log:



Grass Fire:




A bit of an unusual subject for me, so I thought I'd put them here. They're fairly different photos, but I think there's enough similarity - even if it's how unfamiliar I am with the subject's environment - that they don't merit individual threads. I have to be honest and admit that I'm probably not looking to polish them any more than I already have, but a good deconstruction would really be appreciated.

[Don Schaeffer]

I love the logs. I think the grass could have been a tighter crop.

[blowup]

Two more interesting photos, Matthew. I very much like the idea behind the log composition. Unfortunately, the DOF, and what appears to be soft focus on the lower right, lets it down. It's strange that on the extreme left side, it is in sharp focus from 1/4 of the way up, to the top of the frame. But the charcoal-gray rock, and logs on either side of it, on the right, are not in sharp focus anywhere, nor is the far end of the top log. Can this just be a DOF issue? Otherwise, the composition, with everything - logs, rocks sky and clouds - seeming to shoot out from the center, is compelling.

The 2nd photo is also a neat idea. I'm not sure that I agree with Don about the crop, because I think that the surroundings give context. It's a minimalist composition, and the colors and detail in the in-focus blade of grass carry it. However, there is a blue tone - halos around the OOF background - that starts to intrude after looking at this a while. Maybe the blue color can be desaturated (?).

Both these are very good efforts.

Gary

[Pavel]

Hello Matthew,

I tend to agree with Gary on everything. The log photo is a perfect match for the lens you used and it is an excellent use of the perspective of the lens. I join the others in loving the composition. I like the stone you placed with logs - it really adds to the photo. However, the first thing that crossed my mind after I admired the star burst of your composition was the DOF. It could be argued, that it enhances the sense of 3-D, but for me the absence of sharpness is distracting. I really like this photo and can not wait to use Tokina for similar type of photos, as I find them intensely appealing.

The other photo is original, but for me a little too far out. I can appreciate what you are trying to do, without really enjoying it. I agree with Gary that the horizontal band of blue is not very appealing to me and I would desaturate it. I wonder how would the bottom look like in B&W with a gradient applied diminishing from bottom to top.

Pavel

I also not vignetting in both photos. On the 2nd photo, I find it a bit too obvious and I would tone it down.

[NT73]

Well I like the first, DOF or not. The viewpoint is at the front of the shot. The DOF draws you to the front, and the rock with the two knots behind comes over like a creature's eyes and nose.

[Keith Alan]

I think the depth of log issues could be improved by cropping some off the right.
By placing OOF areas near the edge of the frame they are less likely to attract attention--might seem more natural. Of course, you lose some of the water and the base of the main diagonal line but nothing's free.
Shoot it again with the focus point moved to the right a little, and of course stop down the aperture.

Grass is fine as-is. Don't crop it--the diagonals in opposing corners is nice.

[matthew]

Log: Gary, you have a good eye, and some of what you've spotted is the result of some experimentation with the selective application of the Clarity tool in LR2. The rest of it is the result of some very odd DOF behaviour from my lens. The lens is probably at (or slightly inside) its minimum focusing distance, as the rock is only about 2-3" from the front element, and the effect isn't pleasant. There's some smearing in the rocks on the ground, which is far enough away to be completely out of focus. At f/8 I thought I'd be okay, but I was wrong, and didn't have enough control over the camera placement to fake it. (I still love live view with a flippy screen.) Pavel, next time we carry our tripods.

Perhaps it's just me, but I still see the log photo as a telephoto composition even though it's just lightly cropped from a 14mm-e ultra-wide lens.
(The vignetting was added in post.)

Grass: Again I have to take all responsibility for any errors in this photo, as the equipment is blameless. At f/2.8 the lens shouldn't be vignetting at all; in fact I think it's bits of the background that's darker. (This was shot in a marina where a lot of people had stuck their boats.) I've also been experimenting with negative clarity and selective adjustments in LR2 in this photo, but I think some of the haloing is actually more grass in behind the nearer blades. It was also fairly windy, but the shutter speed was 1/2000, so movement shouldn't be a factor in the bokeh even if it's nocked the featured blade out of DOF.

The discussion about the crop brought me back to another way I had taken this shot; Penny saw me working on it and told me to print it out for our living-room. Here's her pick, which is quite simply processed compared to the others. How did I do with this one?



(Looking at it now I'm agreeing that it's too dark. I tried a B&W, but didn't like it, and haven't gone to PS for more selective editing.)

[EnglishBob]

Love the beach shot, the logs are very interesting both tonally and texture wise.

Agree with the other on the grass fire, tighter works better.