The last one of 2010

[Donald]

Would you take out the telegraph poles at the back?


40D, 70-200 f4 L @ 116mm. ISO 100. 1/20@f16. Manual. 2:50pm

[Sam Smith]

Very nice Donald. For what it is worth I would take out the poles. I think it will only make a sllight difference.

[Donald]

Very nice Donald. For what it is worth I would take out the poles. I think it will only make a sllight difference.

Thanks Sam. I've done that and also done a bit of work on the cottage, which I think was too bright.

[Dave Humphries]

That has quite an effect Donald (I would have too, btw).

... the only thing is

... that one at the end of the road which now has undue prominence

(might need to cheat a bit and take the dark bit of road to touch wall so the eye goes left and not out of frame right though)

[ScoutR]

Great way to end the year Donald.

Since you mentioned the telegraph poles - yes, I would take them out because now my eyes go right to them (I'm easily hypnotized too ) Anyway, trying to be subjective, I think the poles might be able to stay, but perhaps if they could be darkened a bit to blend in more with the trees it might be better. Also now that I'm looking in that area, I wonder if that big black shadow in the centre isn't a bit distracting??? Does that bother anyone else?

Wendy

[Wirefox]

The loss of the poles makes a big difference. I really like the mellowness of the light on this one. Wendy I see what you mean about the dark area but a small price to pay for the overall effect. It is always a good sign when we pick on minor details because they are accentuated only by the quaity of the rest of the image.

[Dave Humphries]

Also now that I'm looking in that area, I wonder if that big black shadow in the centre isn't a bit distracting??? Does that bother anyone else?

Wendy

Now why did you have to mention that?

[Sam Smith]

Now why did you have to mention that?

I think the shadow gives more feel to the actual location of the scene. I do like it with the poles in the background removed as it gives it more of a real old country feel. The shadow in the middle gives it depth. Just my thoughts. I guess anyway you view it the pic is outstanding and would be proud to have taken it.

[Dave Humphries]

I guess anyway you view it the pic is outstanding and would be proud to have taken it.

Absolutely, this is a genuine "MacKenzie", we're discussing the final 2% to perfection

I'm jealous, it is sincere though, I wish I could take 'em like this

[RonH]

Just to play devil's advocate ... I would have left the poles in. For me they lead the eye into the 'dark space', wondering what lies beyond. Yes my eyes drift from your capture into 'what' but they do come back for a second and third and ... look Your B/W pics are worthy of many looks Donald

[Donald]

Just to play devil's advocate ...

Ooh, there's always one awkward one!

Thanks Ron. Hope you're well up there in the far north.

And thank you everyone else for the comments.

This was one that was a 'second choice'. I'd been looking at this shot for the last few days (every time we went out with the dog we're looking after at the moment). The planned shot was about 30 yards to the left, so that the road was more running straight away from the camera. And I was looking at it as a 7:5 landscape ratio.

But when I got set up and really looked at the scene, and used my little card cut-outs (have got 3 cut-outs on hard card at 7:5, 16:9 and, for portrait, 4:5 ratios and I hold these up to frame to help 'see' the finished picture), it didn't work (It's that thing I wrote about a couple of days ago of having to really spend time looking and wandering about once I'm in location).

So I moved to the right and got, I think, a much better composition.

[ScoutR]

Ooh, there's always one awkward one!

And I was looking at it as a 7:5 landscape ratio.

But when I got set up and really looked at the scene, and used my little card cut-outs (have got 3 cut-outs on hard card at 7:5, 16:9 and, for portrait, 4:5 ratios and I hold these up to frame to help 'see' the finished picture), it didn't work (It's that thing I wrote about a couple of days ago of having to really spend time looking and wandering about once I'm in location).

.

I'm not sure I am ready for the answer, but I am ready to start thinking about these ratios you pay such attention to. Typically, I just compose the best I can in camera and then crop to any old dimensions during PP.
Donald, would you mind explaining why these ratios are important, and am I going to be sorry at some point for not paying more attention to them.

Wendy

[MiniChris]

Everybody is such an armchair quarterback in the critiquing business and I am no exception, so I took a crack at the image, too...not that I am an expert...but, I found the big dark spot annoying and the telephone poles unnecessary, so I got rid of those problems.
But, I also found I didn't like the tonal brightness beyond the cottage, so i toned it down a bit, and I thought the foreground area leading to the cottage needed some boosting in the highlights, so I did that...and here is my possibility.

[Donald]

Donald, would you mind explaining why these ratios are important, and am I going to be sorry at some point for not paying more attention to them

To start with the second part first - Probably not! Or ... maybe. Read on!

The reasons why I pay attention to ratios:-

1. From a wholly personal point of view, I find these aspect ratios aesthetically pleasing. A lot of professionals, on their websites, seem to go for 1:1 (square). Maybe it's a fashion thing, although some of the past masters/mistresses also did this. If you look at the work of some of the professionals whom we admire, they often present work in only one or maybe two, aspect ratios. So, I read that as being part of establishing their identity/style/approach, etc.
2. I try to discipline myself to work to this limited suite of aspect ratios. I know that I sometimes break my own rule - recently I've posted a couple of 1:1 (square) images.
3. If you do go down the road of printing and want to buy ready-made frames off-the-shelf, you need to work to the ratios that are more common (although 16:9 is not). Although, having said that, I do get my frames made by a friend who has such a business.

The idea of the cut-outs came from CiC. I find them a great aid to composition when you know that you're aiming for a specific aspect ratio.

[MiniChris]

To start with the second part first - Probably not! Or ... maybe. Read on!

The reasons why I pay attention to ratios:-

1. From a wholly personal point of view, I find these aspect ratios aesthetically pleasing. A lot of professionals, on their websites, seem to go for 1:1 (square). Maybe it's a fashion thing, although some of the past masters/mistresses also did this. If you look at the work of some of the professionals whom we admire, they often present work in only one or maybe two, aspect ratios. So, I read that as being part of establishing their identity/style/approach, etc.
2. I try to discipline myself to work to this limited suite of aspect ratios. I know that I sometimes break my own rule - recently I've posted a couple of 1:1 (square) images.
3. If you do go down the road of printing and want to buy ready-made frames off-the-shelf, you need to work to the ratios that are more common (although 16:9 is not). Although, having said that, I do get my frames made by a friend who has such a business.

The idea of the cut-outs came from CiC. I find them a great aid to composition when you know that you're aiming for a specific aspect ratio.

This should probably go into the Tips page, but I never give my students a camera until they've gone outside with the same ratio guide cutouts and explore their world at arm's length. It is all a part of teaching someone to "SEE" as opposed to just looking through a viewfinder.

[Nuno]

...but I never give my students a camera until they've gone outside with the same ratio guide cutouts and explore their world at arm's length.

I found this very, very interesting to me. I will make some cutouts with my default format and try them. Thanks!
By the way, with a streched arm, what size must be the cutout? Is it for a 35mm?

[Donald]

I found this very, very interesting to me. I will make some cutouts with my default format and try them. Thanks!
By the way, with a streched arm, what size must be the cutout? Is it for a 35mm?

Nuno

Mine are measured in cm, except the 16 x 9. So:
7cm x 5cm
4 cm x 5cm
8cm x 4.5cm

I find this is an appropriate size that allows me to, effectively, 'zoom' in and out from arms length in close by my eye.