Dragon's Eyes *** with two images added ***

[rh1944]

I had another visit to see the dragon with a mind to getting some bokeh. A lot of other images took my fancy. The first four are close ups of the right eye.

#1 - the eye in a mono conversion

#2 - a colour version

#3 - a different approach to the colour version

#4 - an experiment with paint brushes, posterise and ageing.

The left eye, but without the experimental version

#5 - a mono conversion

#6 - a colour version with a hint of bokeh

#7 - the other colour version with even less bokeh

Thanks for looking

 

[hunter20ga]

I like number 5 the best, with 3 a close second. Not everyone will like these closeups, and I'm not 100% sure, either. They are a bit "claustraphobic" in a way. Still...very interesting study in style and presentation. It's a good thing to stretch and try for something new.

 

[rh1944]

I like number 5 the best, with 3 a close second. Not everyone will like these closeups, and I'm not 100% sure, either. They are a bit "claustraphobic" in a way. Still...very interesting study in style and presentation. It's a good thing to stretch and try for something new.

Thanks hunter for the comments. It looks like your assertion as to who would like these images is correct. I wanted some up close and personal images of the statue. As an aside, I am due to go to China in January when snow is the order of the day. We haven't had snow in Southport for years, how do you compensate your exposures for snow? I'd be grateful for your insights.

 

[sawman]

Bit too close up for me but if I had to chose I would go for no 3

 

[rh1944]

Bit too close up for me but if I had to chose I would go for no 3

Thanks for the comments. I'll put that idea into Room 101, straight into the furnace.

 

[sawman]

Thanks for the comments. I'll put that idea into Room 101, straight into the furnace.

It was only My opinion. You may well disagree.

 

[neilmac]

#3 and #6 my favourites Russell, bit of depth to the colouring.

Neil

 

[jgs001]

Interesting studies Russell. I can't decide between the Colour and the different approach. I think for my eye, somewhere in the middle. Of them though the different approach shots work best for me.

 

[rh1944]

#3 and #6 my favourites Russell, bit of depth to the colouring.

Neil

Thanks Neil for the comments. I was interested in which approach was the best and thanks to you and John I have something to go on.

Interesting studies Russell. I can't decide between the Colour and the different approach. I think for my eye, somewhere in the middle. Of them though the different approach shots work best for me.

Thanks John for your views. I'll probably go for the more detailed alternative with a bit of a boost to the colour. I've a project to complete and these images were a test bed for the techniques.

 

[Just Dave]

OOO I missed these Russell, great project, they are all very detailed, and a very different take on the normal view point, and all have interesting PP in their own right, #4 is very unusual, and not a technique I myself have used

 

[erding]

Very experimental Russell - I think no 2 offers a lot of possibilities du to the colours and textures

 

[rh1944]

OOO I missed these Russell, great project, they are all very detailed, and a very different take on the normal view point, and all have interesting PP in their own right, #4 is very unusual, and not a technique I myself have used

Thanks Dave for the kind words. I wanted to find a new viewpoint for my dragon project and it struck me that the main users of the dragon are children. So I went back yesterday and got a series of images from the level of a child's eye. I am going to use #4 as the basis for one of the images in the project.

Very experimental Russell - I think no 2 offers a lot of possibilities du to the colours and textures

Thanks Tom for the encouragement. I am using the technique in #2 as the basis for all the images in my project. If I want more detail, I'll use the technique in #3.

 

[Joe T]

Hi Russell, can I ask what you mean by bokeh in these?

 

[rh1944]

Hi Russell, can I ask what you mean by bokeh in these?

I said in my intro that I had in mind to get some bokeh when I went to take the images of which these are a part. What I had in mind was something like this

#1

#2

I just found this more difficult to achieve with composition that I liked. So I decided to experiment with some editing techniques for a project of mine, ignoring the bokeh. I hope that is a clear explanation, thanks for taking the time to comment.

 

[Jo]

Nice come back Russel. I like how you edited your OP to!

I'm not keen on these tbh Russel. I think they are all lacking some thoughtful composition At least I think that's the problem.

The 1st of those last two though.. something odd going on in that background :shrug: Edit: I'm not sure you could call the background in either of those second batch bokeh though. I might understand it wrong myself though ... off to read up a bit.

I kind of liked the fern pics you improved on recently, but feel that maybe you've taken a couple of steps back with these.

I hope you don't take offense to any of my comments, as they are not meant to offend

 

[Jo]

I thought it had it right. A quick check on wikipedia, and I got this for you Russel:


CLICKY

Bokeh characteristics may be quantified by examining the image's circle of confusion. In out-of-focus areas, each point of light becomes a disc. Depending how a lens is corrected for spherical aberration, the disc may be uniformly illuminated, brighter near the edge, or brighter near the center. Lenses that are poorly corrected for spherical aberration will show one kind of disc for out-of-focus points in front of the plane of focus, and a different kind for points behind. This may actually be desirable, as blur circles that are dimmer near the edges produce less-defined shapes which blend smoothly with the surrounding image.

HTH

 

[rh1944]

Nice come back Russel. I like how you edited your OP to!

I'm not keen on these tbh Russel. I think they are all lacking some thoughtful composition At least I think that's the problem.

The 1st of those last two though.. something odd going on in that background :shrug: Edit: I'm not sure you could call the background in either of those second batch bokeh though. I might understand it wrong myself though ... off to read up a bit.

I kind of liked the fern pics you improved on recently, but feel that maybe you've taken a couple of steps back with these.

I hope you don't take offense to any of my comments, as they are not meant to offend

I thought it had it right. A quick check on wikipedia, and I got this for you Russel:

CLICKY

HTH

Thanks Jo for all your comments and effort. I am sure that you did not mean any offence; I can recognise people who have that intent.

These images are part of the material I need for a project I am attempting. My intent was to capture 500 or so images and then reduce them to 10 which tell a particular story. It's certain that the finished project will contain none of these images, but I did want to experiment with editing techniques and that is what this thread was about. Not only does the project need to tell a story but it also has to have different approaches to the images.

The In out of focus areas, point of light becomes a disc part of the bokeh definition has me realising that I have rarely captured any image with true bokeh. I have a feeling that most people use the term bokeh to mean something like detail lost in the DoF. I could be wrong.

 

[Jo]

Sometimes though, the discs of light can be really small. It varies quite a lot. There is a photographer who is very popular on Flickr for his Bokeh night city shots (I think of Japan). I can't remember his name off hand (I know Pete Carr will know it, as I believe he is a fan), but he shows some excellent examples of bokeh used in wonderful ways.