- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Critique The Yorkshire Museum
- Thread starter SFTPhotography
- Start date
- Messages
- 265
- Edit My Images
- Yes
#1 is a nice enough record shot but there is some distortion at the bottom (see e.g. how the thickness of the pillars vary). The Yorkshire Museum can get pretty busy so well done for getting only 1 (or maybe 2? right bottom) visitors in the frame.
#2 works very well for me. The lines, point of view and mono conversion give it an abstract feel. Good shot.
#2 works very well for me. The lines, point of view and mono conversion give it an abstract feel. Good shot.
StephenM
I know a Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 4,979
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No 1.
This has a wonderful balance of lighting and works very well, except for the way you held the camera. I've checked as carefully as I can, and the problem seems to be not that the camera wasn't held level, but that the camera back wasn't square on to the end wall. Everyone knows that if you point the camera up or down, a square will have the top and bottom parallel, but the sides will converge. What people often don't realise is that if you have the camera back strictly vertical (so that the sides are parallel) but the back swung round a little, the sides may be parallel but the top and bottom will converge. And that's what's happened here. I have a photo on flickr that shows this effect very clearly and was put there as an illustration. The sides may have a slight slope, but if so it's less than a half degree or I would have seen it.
The difference in the pillar widths is also an effect of off axis positioning, and can be demonstrated very easily with diagrams to be due to the three dimensional nature of them. Had they been two dimensional, it wouldn't happen.
There are two jarring elements for me:
1. The person bottom left, who appears to exhibit the distortion you get when a subject is considerably off axis. Because this can normally only happen with a wide angle lens, it's often put down to the effect of a wide angle lens, but it's the off axis effect. It can be demonstrated with a long lens if you have camera movements and can use the off axis part of the image.
2. The partial display bottom right that catches the eye, and is noticeably colder than the light elsewhere in the image.
Edit to add:
Link to flickr photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenbatey/2752016240/
This has a wonderful balance of lighting and works very well, except for the way you held the camera. I've checked as carefully as I can, and the problem seems to be not that the camera wasn't held level, but that the camera back wasn't square on to the end wall. Everyone knows that if you point the camera up or down, a square will have the top and bottom parallel, but the sides will converge. What people often don't realise is that if you have the camera back strictly vertical (so that the sides are parallel) but the back swung round a little, the sides may be parallel but the top and bottom will converge. And that's what's happened here. I have a photo on flickr that shows this effect very clearly and was put there as an illustration. The sides may have a slight slope, but if so it's less than a half degree or I would have seen it.
The difference in the pillar widths is also an effect of off axis positioning, and can be demonstrated very easily with diagrams to be due to the three dimensional nature of them. Had they been two dimensional, it wouldn't happen.
There are two jarring elements for me:
1. The person bottom left, who appears to exhibit the distortion you get when a subject is considerably off axis. Because this can normally only happen with a wide angle lens, it's often put down to the effect of a wide angle lens, but it's the off axis effect. It can be demonstrated with a long lens if you have camera movements and can use the off axis part of the image.
2. The partial display bottom right that catches the eye, and is noticeably colder than the light elsewhere in the image.
Edit to add:
Link to flickr photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenbatey/2752016240/
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Stephen, many thanks, I'd concede its not square on. It was very difficult to do, nae tripod, crap body. I used the banister railing to support the body and I can see from the roof it's not dead square.
The display bottom right is an electric screen.
The display bottom right is an electric screen.
StephenM
I know a Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 4,979
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's so easy to get this one wrong. I've never had the ideal conditions for the Pultney Weir shot that I wrecked by not being square on again; and I even managed to get it wrong when taking a simple photo to illustrate a point for my book. Verticals are easy - a spirit level will tell you. Being square on horizontally needs a grid on the screen. Unless anyone knows differently.
OP
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm normally a landscapes man, and if you're not square on with your subject if you're doing a 50 50 reflection it can look odd. I've binned loads for looking off. Something I will work on methinks
I'm going to reshoot it, I like the architecture and I will turn the grid on my camera plus take tripod
I'm going to reshoot it, I like the architecture and I will turn the grid on my camera plus take tripod