Monday, June 09, 2008
Front Patio IV
Comments:
It must be quite difficult for the postman to know that that is no. 18! Maybe the lead in through the succulents could have been sharp because one does start trying to identify plants right at the bottom in order to see how the gardener is coping with the climate.
This garden must have been in place at least 15 years so that is the age of the house, or thereabouts. The people there now probably inherited the garden unless the toys are there for grand-children. All very neat and tidy but practical given the scarcity of water and the abundance of sunshine. Certainly not the random profusion of the garden in my 'spring cleaning' shot.
Bourgainvillea is a wonderful shrub to soften the outline of a house and give colour for much of the year: although it does need cutting back from time to time it is largely maintenance free. The photo does well in showing how important it is.
Not a garden to fall into as a child or adult.
The Bourgainvillea really draws your attention up and away from the cacti in the forground which in my mind are unfortunatley just a tad out of focus.
It was the lack of crispness that struck me. Those foreground cacti with their prickles look soft and woolly. I felt a bit cheated by that as this subject and composition called for sharpness throughout.
I wondered about "Drop Area"
A delightful California garden -- the gaudy children's toys have nothing on that bougainvilla!
I also wish for sharpness in the foreground, otherwise I like the image and what it conveys about this place very much.
The softness struck me as well. This feels very much like a large or medium format type of shot, but without the detail and the subtle color gradations to really make it work.
It is colour combos like these that make me shoot mono :-) I mean, didn't the parents think about the Bourgainvillea when they bought those trucks.
My focus (no pun) here is on the 'drop area' sign. I want to know what it is, and whether there is any comic potential.
Thanks all for your comments.
The "drop area" is really a multi-layered pun, (which is my focus point). The terminology is from Golf, when you bob one into the water, this is your designated aera for the penalty stroke. Now obvious, not a golf course (but surrounded by one, thus tells you about the owner) and you would NOT drop on rocks and cactus for your penalty stroke! Also, you have all these toys surrounded by cactus and succulents, not exactly the ideal place for a small child to play, eh? Thus if they fell (or dropped) they would probably get really hurt. So I was wondering, what are they THINKING?
I am very interested in your softness comments, as this was medium format film, but purposefully with a wide open aperture to achieve a narrow depth of field (something that I am visually exploring with this camera kit). So is the total picture soft or just the foreground and background?
As some of you know, I have been spending a lot of time lately on output sharpening and thus very interested in your observations.
Thanks all!
One tends to think about the garden layout as a result of what is possible - in the conditions here the solution is sensible. When kids come along...well, they have to learn!
I hadn't even thought about the bourgainvillea being sharp or not: it is permissible for it to be the latter. The middle portion is in focus (on my screen) but the foreground is definitely not sharp and needs to be for this particular picture
To me it looks like an error.
That sounds rude but isn't meant to be. It looks like an error because it is in betweenie, neither in nor out of focus.
At our camera club we discussed Michael Hoefner's travellers and joked that if a novice were to bring that in you would suggest they conquered panning or used a faster shutter speed. However there is no doubt Michael intended the effect he achieved, it is obvious, not in betweenie.
What a lovely explosion of colours. I'm finding the left hand edge rather empty and works against a very compact, busy but organised front garden. Just received your Blurb SoFoBoMo and the view of this house that made the book is 'a lot less lived in' and also that left edge, given the slightly further away viewpoint adds a lot of space to a much more open scene to start with.
Not sure the selective focus works here though. Given the 'harsh' sunlight it calls for much more DOF. You need to be able to feel those cactus needles.
Guy, I was in a bind with all of the film prep work for the book, thus the massive reshoot in digital. Fate was not as kind when I revisited this place, and I did not want to step in and re-arrange the patio. But I am thinking that a little bit now, but I still think it was more important for the owners to figure out where they wanted their things, verus me laying them out. (doucment vesus a still live?) I understand that this is kinda busy on the right side, which adds a little more tension to the photograph with many of these uncomfortable items in the front yard.
As to the focus, now I am wondering if I should have used my longer lens to increase the shallow dept of field effects. I do believe that the traditional way is to keep the foreground sharp and permit the background to go out of focus for an atmospheric effect. I am still not sure and may use this yet.
Post a Comment
This garden must have been in place at least 15 years so that is the age of the house, or thereabouts. The people there now probably inherited the garden unless the toys are there for grand-children. All very neat and tidy but practical given the scarcity of water and the abundance of sunshine. Certainly not the random profusion of the garden in my 'spring cleaning' shot.
Bourgainvillea is a wonderful shrub to soften the outline of a house and give colour for much of the year: although it does need cutting back from time to time it is largely maintenance free. The photo does well in showing how important it is.
The Bourgainvillea really draws your attention up and away from the cacti in the forground which in my mind are unfortunatley just a tad out of focus.
I wondered about "Drop Area"
I also wish for sharpness in the foreground, otherwise I like the image and what it conveys about this place very much.
My focus (no pun) here is on the 'drop area' sign. I want to know what it is, and whether there is any comic potential.
The "drop area" is really a multi-layered pun, (which is my focus point). The terminology is from Golf, when you bob one into the water, this is your designated aera for the penalty stroke. Now obvious, not a golf course (but surrounded by one, thus tells you about the owner) and you would NOT drop on rocks and cactus for your penalty stroke! Also, you have all these toys surrounded by cactus and succulents, not exactly the ideal place for a small child to play, eh? Thus if they fell (or dropped) they would probably get really hurt. So I was wondering, what are they THINKING?
I am very interested in your softness comments, as this was medium format film, but purposefully with a wide open aperture to achieve a narrow depth of field (something that I am visually exploring with this camera kit). So is the total picture soft or just the foreground and background?
As some of you know, I have been spending a lot of time lately on output sharpening and thus very interested in your observations.
Thanks all!
I hadn't even thought about the bourgainvillea being sharp or not: it is permissible for it to be the latter. The middle portion is in focus (on my screen) but the foreground is definitely not sharp and needs to be for this particular picture
That sounds rude but isn't meant to be. It looks like an error because it is in betweenie, neither in nor out of focus.
At our camera club we discussed Michael Hoefner's travellers and joked that if a novice were to bring that in you would suggest they conquered panning or used a faster shutter speed. However there is no doubt Michael intended the effect he achieved, it is obvious, not in betweenie.
Not sure the selective focus works here though. Given the 'harsh' sunlight it calls for much more DOF. You need to be able to feel those cactus needles.
As to the focus, now I am wondering if I should have used my longer lens to increase the shallow dept of field effects. I do believe that the traditional way is to keep the foreground sharp and permit the background to go out of focus for an atmospheric effect. I am still not sure and may use this yet.