Sculpture by mother nature; perversions all mine.
#1
[IMG]_DSC7150 - Version 2 (2) by Janis Hughes, on Flickr[/IMG]
#2
[IMG]_DSC7150 - Version 2 by Janis Hughes, on Flickr[/IMG]
#3
[IMG]_DSC7181 by Janis Hughes, on Flickr[/IMG]
Sculpture by mother nature; perversions all mine.
#1
[IMG]_DSC7150 - Version 2 (2) by Janis Hughes, on Flickr[/IMG]
#2
[IMG]_DSC7150 - Version 2 by Janis Hughes, on Flickr[/IMG]
#3
[IMG]_DSC7181 by Janis Hughes, on Flickr[/IMG]
These are all nice to my eye but I specially like #3. The gradations of colour, texture and form all work together.
Last edited by TonyW; 22nd September 2015 at 10:05 AM.
Really creative - lovely set.
I agree with Tony. No. 3 would look great printed at 12" x 18" and framed.
I like the 3rd one too, Janis. It makes me want to head down to the beach and try something similar. I have never thought of getting up close for a shot like that.
Very nice textures and patterns on these, good shots Janis.
The third one appeals to me because of the gradient changing from warm tones in the foreground to cool tones in the rear. I like the first one because of its abstract character. The second one doesn't work for me because it appears as if you changed the orientation of the image during post-processing from horizontal to vertical, changing the front-to-rear perspective to be from left to right.
I like the use of texture (sometimes more, sometimes less) in all of them.
My mono side attracts me to no.1 as the stand out but a creative idea and a nice set overall Janis.
Yes #1 is my preference as well.
The last one would have worked for me if it wasn't for the out of focus area in the foreground.
Comment makes me wonder generally about this type of shot e.g the also-popular sand dunes (beach or desert) replete with ripples.
What is the "rule" as to DOF? Should the whole pattern be in as sharp a focus as possible? Or is a very, very slight diminution in sharpness going away perhaps acceptable, so as to give an impression of distance? Or is "distance" undesirable? Can the foreground be out of focus or not?
I don't mean "rule" to be any more binding than the so-called 1/3rds rule: there's a much better word on the tip of my pen but the 75-yr old gray cells have lost it
Second shot reminds me of Escher's metamorphoses a little bit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis_II
.
Last edited by xpatUSA; 22nd September 2015 at 07:55 PM.
I think this is mostly a matter of personal preference, Ted. For me, an image which starts out of focus (where you first look) then gets sharp before fading into the distance doesn't work as well as being sharp where I first look then fading from that point.
But there are exceptions such as flowers or wildlife etc where there is often a centrally placed main subject and a considerably blurred foreground still looks acceptable; and sometimes desirable.
Quite so Geoff but I was talking specifically about shots like the OP - ripple patterns in sand - almost a genre, so to speak. I share your view about foreground sharpness but more generally, e.g. as in the cliche boat on the beach shot, maybe it matters less compared to those in the OP?
Last edited by xpatUSA; 22nd September 2015 at 08:32 PM.
Thanks for your responses, all. Nothing creative here, Richard; the foliage here has gone dull green so shooting landscapes is not too appealing right now, but the water was low on Sunday and I always find something interesting in the exposed rock and sand.
Greg, if you do shoot some things along these lines, I hope you will share them with us.
Mike, you are quite right; I rotated in post-processing, because I didn't think to do so while I had the camera in hand. Now I am wishing I had posted the version that is flipped horizontally, to see if it would have fooled you. (Probably not.)
Glad you asked the question, Ted, because it is one of mine. I struggle with DOF in these types of shots and I should be more systematic about experimenting with a variety of settings. One problem is that I am probably closer to the ground than many of you, so I suppose that is a limiting factor for me when shooting at an angle.
Geoff, I thought most people's eyes would zero in on the in-focus area in the lower RH corner first and I tried to reinforce that it in PP, but I see now how I perhaps just drew more attention to the out-of-focus bit. Something to think about next time, as the patterning very definitely starts there in that corner. The point is that everything has to work together, doesn't it?
Before I read the nit-picking section of this post, , I prefer #1. I still do but then I saw #3 and like that better because of the texture of the sand...I was thinking that I had seen a lot of these many times when I was living full time across the beach and all that but never thought of getting down on my knees and shooting this kind of genre...very clever.
And hey, I like the nitpicking sections of this post too...it helps understand how some sees differently, which btw, to add to that, I do not like the blue special effect of #2 variation of #1. It sort of reminded me of when I once made blue mash potatoes...the kids said "Blehhhhh!" Not your shot, it is nice but it just doesn't work for me...
Hi Janis, very creative shots . I especially like #1 and #3
Sorry to be late to this thread, but they are indeed wonderful, particularly #3
Being at the Beach ourselves at the moment, this is something I have thought of trying, then I changed tack & thight of a 'white' series... White sand, white waves with the sea so rough, no blue & an interesting white cloud pattern, or white sailboat ......
Ideas only, whereas you have executed yours wonderfully
Thanks, Binnur and Kay. Kay, I hope you do give it a go and share your results. It would be great to carve out a bit more of a corner for nature abstracts here on CiC.
Nice photos Janis. But #2 makes me feel awkward. I want to rotate it counter-clockwise 90 degrees