Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / October 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

[SI] Shoot-In, "Timing" Comments

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Mardon - 25 Oct 2006 18:01 GMT
Here in Newfoundland, the grass needs mowed and the SI submissions
need critiqued. Hummm, which will I do first....  OK, that was
easy.  [Mardon starts typing.]

I like this mandate but I think that Jim gave several of us an easy
out by blatantly allowing archived submissions when he posted the
mandate.  For slothful people like me (and apparently Bret, Walter,
and Alan) that little bit of extra 'wiggle room' was all it took to
allow me to rely on an archived shot rather than getting out there
with my camera and finding something new to fit the mandate.  Shame
on us 'archivers'.  On the other hand, we still did better than
99.99999999% of the photographers in the world; at least we
submitted something!  :)

On to the reviews.  (I'm sure glad that I don't have to be graceful
with my comments until next time.)

Mardon
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/69154440
The "timing: theme for this image is not what you think.  It was
good timing because I just happened to be driving down this road,
with my camera laying on the seat beside me, when I came upon these
Ski-dooers jumping the road.  What luck!  What good timing!  I
stopped and started taking some photos.  They stopped jumping.  
They sent an emissary over to me to ask if I was taking photos for
the police.  When I laughed and said "No", they went back to their
jumping and started actually 'showing off' for the camera.

Bowser
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/69122585
Good stop-action shot.  I wonder what this would have looked like
at f/2.8 (or as wide open as your lens would allow)?  I think I'd
prefer to have the trees blurred more, even if it was at the
expense of also blurring the players to the rear of the shot. The 2
players in front are the centre of the action, so I'd prefer them
to also be the clear centre of focus (both literally and
figuratively.)  Good colours.  I wonder if a very tiny reduction in
contrast might also be a small improvement.

Duncan Chesley
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/timing
"Handheld through a screen door" says it all.  Even for a VR lens,
isn't 1/60 sec at 160mm too slow to handhold?  The screen door
provided a unique 'effects filter' adding to the soft fuzziness of
the image and dramatically reducing contrast.   What can I say,
I'll give you 5 bonus points for having the guts to experiment with
a shot this unique.  Other than that, I deduct 10 points for
everything else.  I can tell you with confidence that Nikon will
never use this shot to hawk the quality of their Nikkor 70-200 VR
lens. See, I told you I don't have to be graceful with my comments
until next time!  ;)

Ken Nadvornick
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/69122635
Boy!  For B&W it's sure hard to beat film.  Great shot!  Smack on
with the mandate.  If this wasn't posed, what did that guy say when
your flash went off?  Wow!  I like what appears to be frost on the
bus shelter.  The only thing I don't like about this photo is the
reflection of the flash.  To my eye, the reflection is distracting
and does not add to this image as it sometimes can.  I'm going to
have to try more B&W.  I really like this image.

Quercus
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/69122644
Certainly meets the mandate!  It's too bad those buildings are so
distracting in the background.  I notice that you were at 1/60 sec
which shows motion in the water nicely, and at ISO100.  I guess to
blur the background with a wider aperture, while keeping the other
settings, you would have needed a neutral density filter.  I think
a circular polarizer would have helped a lot for this image.  It
would have taken some of the glare off the water and also allowed
you to go one stop wider with the aperture.

Jim Kramer
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/69122670
I'm trying to tie this image in with the mandate.  I guess it's the
fleeting expression on the child's face.  Is that correct?  Being
the generous guy that I am (LOL), I'll not deduct any points for
being off-mandate but it's close.  I think I'd like the camera to
have been a little closer to the floor for a better perspective.  
Was there a ceiling that would have allowed for a bounce flash?  I
find it really hard to get good lighting with a flash that's
mounted on the camera.  The shadow behind the train's smokestack is
a big tell-tale about the flash used for this image.  All that
said, how can any image of a smiling child not be appealing;
especially if it's our own child or grandchild!  :)

Bret Douglas
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/69124569
This image has a fantastic connection to the mandate.  The timing
of the 1/800 sec shutter speed was critical as was the timing of
when the shutter was released.  I wish the shutter had been
depressed just a micro-instant before it was.  IMO, if the ball had
been caught completely still and in sharp focus, with the blurred
club shown just infinitesimally before impact, this good shot would
have been a great shot.   As they say, "Timing is everything."

Helen Silverburg
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/69132314
Very nice image. I love the colours and silhouette.  Welcome to the
SI.  This image certainly meets the mandate.  You've captured the
sun at exactly the moment of sunset.  The only thing that could
make the timing of a sunset photo better is if you could somehow
capture that elusive Inferior-Mirage Green Flash that people talk
about.    Now that would be fantastic timing!  

Graham Fountain
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/69150767
The mandate didn't really say "good timing", so perhaps your
example of "poor timing" does qualify.  I'll give you the benefit
of the doubt.  No deduction on that account.  It's kind of unique
to see the still feet and only a very hard to detect blurred bird.  
IMO, your image is pretty much like Duncan's; that is, bonus points
for guts and outside-the-box thinking, but a major points deduction
for questionable picture quality.  

Walter Banks
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/69153824
I like being in these kinds of places so that probably makes me
biased  in favour of your image.   I love the water service
contrasted with the wake of the boat.  I don't like the tilted
shoreline.  When I take a shot like this, I'm never sure if I
should compose for a horizontal shoreline or a plumb camera.  I
almost always do the former and I think that should be the case
with this image too.  The tilted shoreline is the first thing I see
and that detracts from the image.

Alan Browne
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/69159190
Glad you submitted this one.  I'm supposed to photograph a
volleyball tournament on Saturday.  Unfortunately, I don't think
I'm going to be allowed to use any flash, let alone 2 of them.  :(    
1/15 sec?  Was that handheld?  The slow shutter allows the of the
ball to stand out  but it also blurs most everything else in the
photo.  There's no question that I really like the hands that are
above the net and the ball.  Those elements of the image are great!  
The rest of the image is not quite so appealing to me.  The shadows
on the back wall from two flashes are kind of distracting and the
overall softness is not my cup of tea. Then again, I'm a sharpness
'nut' as many times confessed.

Now, I wonder how much longer that grass grew while I was typing t
Duncan Chesley - 25 Oct 2006 20:20 GMT
>Duncan Chesley
>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/timing
>"Handheld through a screen door" says it all.  Even for a VR lens,
>isn't 1/60 sec at 160mm too slow to handhold?  

And I thought all the ads said 3 stops or more.  Sheesh.

>The screen door
>provided a unique 'effects filter' adding to the soft fuzziness of
>the image and dramatically reducing contrast.   What can I say,
>I'll give you 5 bonus points for having the guts to experiment with
>a shot this unique.  

I'll take the points. Since you are a self-confessed sharpness freak,
I'll forgive your subsequent deductions.

I was trying to take an unusual picture of a bird after taking a bunch
of usual ones of my feeder. I was after a little Halloween flavor as
well. It was raining at the time and I wasn't too keen on taking my
new toy outside.

Thank you for the comments, Mardon.

Cheers,
DuncanC
Walter Banks - 25 Oct 2006 21:29 GMT
> Here in Newfoundland, the grass needs mowed and the SI submissions
> need critiqued. Hummm, which will I do first....  OK, that was
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> with this image too.  The tilted shoreline is the first thing I see
> and that detracts from the image.

Mardon

Thanks for the comments. First the shoreline comment. I agree
with you rotating this image right 1.21 degrees makes quite a
difference and I like the outcome better. (It really is 1.21 degrees
out of level)

At the time I took this image my goal was using a focus point
to draw the eye to an object. I was also playing with foreground
objects in images to emphasize depth.  In this case the crisp boat in
undisturbed water followed by the chaos in its wake. I took two
images of the boat. the first maybe 20 seconds earlier followed
by this one with much better composition. Both taken as I was
seated on my deck drinking morning coffee camera in hand
waiting for the grass to grow :)

Your comments are appreciated as always.

Walter..
helensilverburg@hotmail.com - 25 Oct 2006 22:34 GMT
> Here in Newfoundland, the grass needs mowed and the SI submissions
> need critiqued. Hummm, which will I do first....  OK, that was
[quoted text clipped - 138 lines]
>
> Now, I wonder how much longer that grass grew while I was typing t

Thanks Mardon for your comments. I really appreciate your input. I have
seen the Inferior-Mirage Green Flash many times and I know what you
mean.  It is very appealing to a lot of people, but for me I wanted the
sun exactly the way I photographed it. It was setting so quickly I had
to time it just right.  
Thanks again,
Helen
Annika1980 - 26 Oct 2006 00:46 GMT
> Thanks Mardon for your comments. I really appreciate your input. I have
> seen the Inferior-Mirage Green Flash many times and I know what you
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Thanks again,
> Helen

Sweet first submission!  Congrats.
helensilverburg@hotmail.com - 26 Oct 2006 01:15 GMT
> > Thanks Mardon for your comments. I really appreciate your input. I have
> > seen the Inferior-Mirage Green Flash many times and I know what you
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Sweet first submission!  Congrats.

Thanks Bret! Your pic was great---it must have been a tough shot to
get. I like the action in the pic. You can really sense the swing of
the club as it hits the ball. Excellent.
Helen
Annika1980 - 26 Oct 2006 04:27 GMT
> > Sweet first submission!  Congrats.
>
> Thanks Bret! Your pic was great---it must have been a tough shot to
> get.

Not really.  If you take about 50,000 pics of golfers hitting the ball,
you're bound to get at least one at the moment of impact.
helensilverburg@hotmail.com - 27 Oct 2006 01:16 GMT
> > > Sweet first submission!  Congrats.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Not really.  If you take about 50,000 pics of golfers hitting the ball,
> you're bound to get at least one at the moment of impact.

All-in-all it took dedication, patience and of course timing to get
that shot. Excellent work!
Helen
JimKramer - 26 Oct 2006 02:05 GMT
> Here in Newfoundland, the grass needs mowed and the SI submissions
> need critiqued. Hummm, which will I do first....  OK, that was
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> out by blatantly allowing archived submissions when he posted the
> mandate.

You get to thank Al for that, not me.

> Jim Kramer
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/69122670
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> said, how can any image of a smiling child not be appealing;
> especially if it's our own child or grandchild!  :)

Given my son's recent desire to "smile" every time he sees the camera
this was perfect timing.  Somehow he's gotten it into his head that to
"smile" is to make a face reminiscent of some young lad who is about to
re-swallow the vomit that has gurgled its way up, rather than spew it
all over the girl he was hoping to kiss.  As cute as he is, that does
not make a pretty picture.

20 foot high ceiling of terracotta block, so no bounce flash, I didn't
even have time to propperly adjust the camera settings.  Being 6' 4"
I'm used to looking down on things so I'll not argue the perspective
issue.

Thanks for commenting.
Jim
Alan Browne - 26 Oct 2006 03:02 GMT
> Alan Browne
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/69159190
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> overall softness is not my cup of tea. Then again, I'm a sharpness
> 'nut' as many times confessed.

Thanks, that's actually a somewhat cropped shot, I just don't have the
full size scan online to show the whole frame.  Offhand, I'd say the
crop was about 60% horizontal and 20 - 30% vertical of the orig.  (It
was a "landscape" shot, cropped to "portrait".)

Monopod with a partially "loose" ballhead which supports the weight but
allows some movement.

The movement is soft due to the shutter drag and that was purposeful (as
was the choice of film speed and push to get close to the ambient
(sodium vapour) lighting.)

That night (or rather over a few nights) was about movement and using
rear-sync to put the "streaks" behind the ball.  I like the movement in
 limbs and so on as shown, but the coloration due to the lighting is
pretty wretched.  The grain is due to the crop, underexposure and push.

For tournament shots (uniforms) crisp and sharp is the order of the day.
 If you place your flashed high enough, you should have no problem
getting permission.  I set the flashes at 1/2 power for an incident
flash reading of f/5.6 at the net.

Cheers,
Alan

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
--        r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
--      [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
--                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Ken Nadvornick - 27 Oct 2006 07:20 GMT
> Ken Nadvornick
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/69122635
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> and does not add to this image as it sometimes can.  I'm going to
> have to try more B&W.  I really like this image.

Thanks for the very generous review!

Agreed that it's hard to beat film for b&w.  Too bad we're forced by
circumstances to show only digitized images here.

On the original print that notice on the shelter wall shows an easily
legible title and subtitle.  Under a 10x loupe the negative shows legible
fine print.  And the contact proof sheet frame just glows with rich
tonality.  Unfortunately, none of this survives a 100 dpi scan displayed on
a monitor.  Two completely different animals, I'm afraid.

The frost on the shelter is actually a pre-frost dew.  The temp at the time
the photograph was made was in the upper 30s F (about 3 C). I don't think
the air temp quite dropped to freezing later that night, but it was close.

I knew the flash reflections were a problem that could have been easily
altered in PS.  Well, in The Gimp anyway.  But under my personal rules of
engagement, modifying or removing them would have violated the Prime
Directive.  Meaning that the image would have then crossed the line from
being a photograph to being a graphic arts illustration.  Since I was
intending to present a photograph,  the reflections stayed.

(Please note that these are *my* self-imposed rules, valid only for me.
Everyone else is, of course, free to interpret and present their images as
they see fit.)

Thanks for your in-depth critique.  I enjoy the fact that you're not simply
saying only nice things about each picture, but are also including
criticism.  It's the criticism, not the compliments, we learn from.

(A final note to Alan Browne:  The reason I chose to use a flash in the dark
was specifically to force the background to complete black in order to
remove the pesky "clutter" that would have otherwise shown.  And you thought
I wasn't listening... <g>)

Ken
Alan Browne - 28 Oct 2006 15:20 GMT
> (A final note to Alan Browne:  The reason I chose to use a flash in the dark
> was specifically to force the background to complete black in order to
> remove the pesky "clutter" that would have otherwise shown.  And you thought
> I wasn't listening... <g>)

The shot is so effective in isolating the subject, environment and sense
of time that I didn't even think in terms of flash.  Just, "cool shot!"

I was looking, however, for his shaddow and then it dawned on me that it
was a flash lit shot (the two refelctions in the shelter).

This reminds me of a stage scene where everything is dark except the
subject isolated under a high spot or two.

The "other" flash technique is of course to keep the shutter open longer
(tripod) to record background lights along with the subject.  But as
shot, terrific.

Cheers,
Alan

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
--        r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
--      [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
--                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.