Hazel island

[pewidane]

Constructive criticism reqvest by these pictures from Hazel island,south denmark,Thanks Peder

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by pewidane

Constructive criticism reqvest by these pictures from Hazel island,south denmark,Thanks Peder

Peder, I have watched with interest as you have put these images on your gallery. I am pleased now that you have offered them for critique.

I have always been a big fan of your work, and love the way you use colour, shape and form, as well as lighting as part of your photographs.

These shots from Hazel Island are no different. I am particularly interested in the way you often place an object, like a tree, in the centre of the frame. My sense of composition usually tells me it should be to the left or right of the frame. However it works and you have 3 of these here where there is something that keeps the eye in the centre of the frame.

In all 5 of the images there is very different light, which plays on the scene giving a different feel to each one.

Super pictures, I hope you will continue to offer your photos for critique.

[pewidane]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Peder, I have watched with interest as you have put these images on your gallery. I am pleased now that you have offered them for critique.

I have always been a big fan of your work, and love the way you use colour, shape and form, as well as lighting as part of your photographs.

These shots from Hazel Island are no different. I am particularly interested in the way you often place an object, like a tree, in the centre of the frame. My sense of composition usually tells me it should be to the left or right of the frame. However it works and you have 3 of these here where there is something that keeps the eye in the centre of the frame.

In all 5 of the images there is very different light, which plays on the scene giving a different feel to each one.

Super pictures, I hope you will continue to offer your photos for critique.

Here are 3 original pictueres hope you can se the difference.I try to work the same way as a painter .

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by pewidane

Here are 3 original pictueres hope you can se the difference.I try to work the same way as a painter .

Indeed I can see the difference, you use the same principle as I often do, not accepting what comes from the camera as the final image, but rather creating something far more. Peder, you are an image maker not a photo taker I hope that makes sense

[pewidane]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Indeed I can see the difference, you use the same principle as I often do, not accepting what comes from the camera as the final image, but rather creating something far more. Peder, you are an image maker not a photo taker I hope that makes sense

Yes Stephen i se the negativ as rawmaterial and try to make it better and that is great fun.Peder.

[pewidane]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Peder, I have watched with interest as you have put these images on your gallery. I am pleased now that you have offered them for critique.

I have always been a big fan of your work, and love the way you use colour, shape and form, as well as lighting as part of your photographs.

These shots from Hazel Island are no different. I am particularly interested in the way you often place an object, like a tree, in the centre of the frame. My sense of composition usually tells me it should be to the left or right of the frame. However it works and you have 3 of these here where there is something that keeps the eye in the centre of the frame.

In all 5 of the images there is very different light, which plays on the scene giving a different feel to each one.

Super pictures, I hope you will continue to offer your photos for critique.

Hi Stephen.About composition in the centre of the frame,i cant see that`
s wrong,but here are the way i do it.peder ( its a question about balance ).

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by pewidane

Hi Stephen.About composition in the centre of the frame,i cant see that`
s wrong,but here are the way i do it.peder

Thanks for that Peder, it is interesting to see how you see and interpret a scene. If it works, then it is clearly not wrong. Your eye for composition is different to my own, but I feel I can learn something from your personal approach.

Occasionally Tim (Bearface) and I will go somewhere to take photos. We have the same subject material but always come away with a different style of image. I think its fair to say we have learnt from each other to view a scene in different ways

[spl]

I like these images a lot and its what I too am aspiring towards. I could not agree more with Stephen's remarks about making much more of an image than what comes out of the camera (not matter how expensive and zooty that camera is). I feel it is an integral part of digital photography and the sooner this is accepted the better. I have entered numerous digital photography contests (on other boards I hasten to say) what my attempts at post editing have been criticised (simply because I have done it - not becuase I have done it badly in which case I wouldn't mind the criticism) and sometimes you even get disqualified on the more "serious" boards or at least take themselves seriously. As far as I am concerned this is stuff of nonsense becuase there can and I am sure are very many instances where people skilled enough can get away with editing without it being noticeable in any obvious way to the "judges".

[Bearface]

Originally Posted by pewidane

Constructive criticism reqvest by these pictures from Hazel island,south denmark,Thanks Peder

Like Stephen, my own approach to composition tends to be less symmetrical than the techniques you've used for these woodland shots. Clearly this is something that works for you and you have also justified your methods in your subsequent responses to Stephen. It's an interesting and logical approach which will almost certainly work for many people here who feel that they need a more discliplined, measured way to compose and frame scenes such as these.

As far as the images themselves are concerned, I think your post-processing work is excellent. The hue adjustments and the contrast changes have transformed the mood of the originals, but the results remain sympathetic and considered. In other words, you've redefined the realism of the original shots without turning them into dubious "digital art" pieces.

Finally in response to the comments made about post-processing and the development of a digital file, I feel that it's important for people to realise that while it's okay to let your camera's processing engine do all the sharpening, contrast adjustments and colour balancing if you need a quick reference shot.......................it's significantly more rewarding to be able to capture an unadjusted RAW image and "develop" it yourself. After all, that's fundamentally the principle of traditional photography, so it shouldn't be frowned upon in the digital age, should it..?

[pewidane]

Thanks to Stephen,spl and Bearface ,i agree with you.
( The pleasures of good photographs are the pleasures of good photographs,whatever the particulars of their makeup. )

[paul.r.w]

As you know I'm new to this and a self confessed snapper but I'm not sure that I agree with your comments. (what does he know I hear)
I think the images are beautiful but take the first one for example, the fallen tree, the enhancement is so great from the original it looks like a painting. This is surely art but photography?

[Bearface]

Originally Posted by paul.r.w

As you know I'm new to this and a self confessed snapper but I'm not sure that I agree with your comments. (what does he know I hear)

Whose comments are you responding to? And when you say you're "not sure" that you agree with them, is this because you have yet to make your mind up?

As for "what does he know..?", well I guess you must know what you like, right..?

Originally Posted by paul.r.w

...I think the images are beautiful but take the first one for example, the fallen tree, the enhancement is so great from the original it looks like a painting. This is surely art but photography?

If you can quantify what it is that constitutes art (beyond the traditional "definitions", which are at best subjective and therefore inconclusive...) you're a step ahead of most people. However if photography continues to be defined by the traditional processes we've become familiar with, then what Peder posted here is most certainly photography. Whether it's the kind of photography you approve of is another matter - would you care to elucidate?

[paul.r.w]

I'm probably several steps behind most people and I'm certainly not disapproving. When an image is "painted" like this is it still a photograph or is it a painting? I always considered a photograph as a reflection of reality and the better the photographer and camera and lens, the better the picture. I guess I must be very narrow minded or naive?

"the camera never lies!"

[Bearface]

Originally Posted by paul.r.w

I'm probably several steps behind most people and I'm certainly not disapproving.

You are perfectly entitled to disapprove

Originally Posted by paul.r.w

When an image is "painted" like this is it still a photograph or is it a painting? I always considered a photograph as a reflection of reality and the better the photographer and camera and lens, the better the picture. I guess I must be very narrow minded or naive?

Unless your camera is set to process a sharpened, accurately exposed JPEG image it's generally the case that the captured raw (or RAW) shot needs to be processed (or developed) in a suitable editing program, such as Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro. In this sense digital photography is similar to film, in that the captured image is not the end product...

People have differing views as to what is acceptable in terms of image manipulation in post-processing, but if the shot is essentially an adjusted version of the original (as opposed to say.......a composite image), then it's perfectly fair to describe it as a photograph, because that's what it is.

As for good photography being based on how accurately the image reflects the original scene............well if you're talking about documentary or journalistic photography that could well be true. However the most emotive and powerful images are often those which have been deliberately adjusted to reflect the vision of the photographer, rather than reality.......which brings us back to the art question...

If you place objective limits and boundaries in the way of your appreciation of
creativity and art, then of course you're going to restrict yourself to those self-defined images which accurately reflect reality, and such an approach might be considered narrow minded or naive. However what you choose to enjoy and admire in terms of photography is up to you - you'll never be criticised for having an opinion

Originally Posted by paul.r.w

"the camera never lies!"

Oh but it does.............generally because we all see the truth in different ways

[Tinka]

[QUOTE=Bearface;18580]You are perfectly entitled to disapprove

In this sense digital photography is similar to film, in that the captured image is not the end product...

I my days in the chemical dark room, we were taught how to manipulate an image using dodging and burning techniques, and also how to remove or reduce the impact of an element in the image, or distort the reality of the image completely, It is no different now in digital, only cheaper, less dangerous and in a sense easier to achieve the end result visualised. However, it is also only to easy to get bogged down with the photoshoping techniques and lose sight of the initial visualisation of an image. If this makes sense?
Oh! yes I nearly forgot, I like your images I feel you have created some fine images.