needing advice
Feb. 16th, 2007 04:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blustockingIt's 4:10 in the morning and my normal indecisiveness has turned into a drooling monster quietly gnawing on my brain whilst lolling his eyes and saying "duhhhhhrrrrr"....so, which one of the first 9 of these do you think I should submit to this.
And I apologize if you can't see it. I think you might have to have a JPG account.
And I apologize if you can't see it. I think you might have to have a JPG account.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: thank you
Date: 2007-02-19 02:28 am (UTC)Then I will take this opportunity to point something out:
When shooting full figures, I hate it when peeps cut off the feet. Shoot by sections. You can cut by the shoulders, by the waist down to the knees but bellow knee and feet.... One follows the legs off the image.
It is just an opinion, if not a peeve. =)
One gets the weird perception to be looking inside a box or though a window rather than being present in the space of the image. Of course, that can be used wisely in specific concepts but otherwise, it removes the viewer from "the space".
Re: thank you
Date: 2007-02-19 02:45 am (UTC)It's similar in painting. Cutting off body parts at the edge, the feet, allows the viewer's mind to fill in the rest. There is the suggestion of space continuing on outside the edge. We don't assume they're footless/armless/headless, our brains fill in the rest. For me, cutting it off, adds more of a sense of being in "the space" than having the figure take up the full-frame. You're setting the boundaries and asking nothing of the viewer. It's in those times that I'm most conscious of the window/box/frame of the photo.
I'd shoot full-figure if I were doing formal poses, but otherwise, I think I'd only do it if there were a lot of foreground or the scenery was important to the shot.
As someone who's drawn to boxes/windows, that may be something I choose to do unconsciously.
But like you said, that's just my opinon. :)
Re: thank you
Date: 2007-02-19 02:55 am (UTC)Anarchy then ensues and the world ends.
I like your approach. If we all did the same thing, art would be boring.
....in landscapes, do you center the horizon?
Re: thank you
Date: 2007-02-19 03:07 am (UTC)I don't know. I do what looks right to me. Depends on the situation.
Here's a question...if the horizon isn't in the center, IS it a landscape? Ooooo. Say you were taking a beach shot and the water was 3/4 of the picture. Is that a landscape? Or a waterscape. Bwahaha.
Re: thank you
Date: 2007-02-19 03:30 am (UTC)-I had a bit of a rigid first year =P
Still, I think about it every time I shoot a fucking landscape.
I mean, what happens when I have 70% sky?
Oh the ho-rror.
Re: thank you
Date: 2007-02-19 06:53 am (UTC)4 out of 5 professors agree, 70% sky means you're an asshole.
Re: thank you
Date: 2007-02-20 02:09 am (UTC)One thing I can't stand though: Skies shot in B&W without at least a polarizer or a yellow (if not darker) filter.
do you like puppies too?
Date: 2007-02-20 03:44 am (UTC)Re: do you like puppies too?
Date: 2007-02-20 04:11 am (UTC)I have both Hoya and Cokin. I have found Cokin to be less of a nuisance since all I need is a few adapter rings and I can use them in any camera while the Hoyas are of a set circumference and therefore less interchangeable. Also, cokins has a wider variety of filters available cheaply on e-bay.
Anyway, what you really really need is a good polarizer.
There is no filter more essential than a polarizer.
Re: do you fondle your polarizer?
Date: 2007-02-20 06:30 am (UTC)I like how I worry about rent and will soon start donating plasma, but photographic eBay purchases are A-ok.
Oy.
Date: 2007-02-19 02:47 am (UTC)Mother eff.
Thank you though, I'll take both shots from now on and see what it does.
Re: Oy.
Date: 2007-02-19 02:59 am (UTC)You already know I am a dick so I rather give you a good opinion than OMG U SO GUD!!1ONE
I keep getting that in my LJ.
You shoot digital. All you are wasting is memory space. Shoot from all angles, all frames. I often burn a whole film on 1 subject and I will only consider 1 image out of 36.
Re: Oy.
Date: 2007-02-19 03:11 am (UTC)I do shoot a lot of frames. I went back and looked at that particular image and tried to imagine it with the feet in frame. I think it would have ruined the negative space surrounding her. Plus, it was a tough corner, small space. It is something to think about though.
And I'm taking my Holga and 35mm down to New Orleans in March. Whole different mindset. Kinda nervous. Not that I haven't shot traditional, just been awhile...and I'm nowhere near having the technical ability that you have.
Re: Oy.
Date: 2007-02-19 03:37 am (UTC)You don't need a mindset for a Holga! If you have broken the H in before, you probably know what to expect and if there is a camera that requires little tech skill, it's the Holga. I have an Fn and a 120s. Both quirky and bitchy and there is not much I can do about it =)
Still, back it up. You don't wanna miss a great shot because the Holga is acting up. Such is their nature and fun.
Re: Oy.
Date: 2007-02-19 06:50 am (UTC)Re: Oy.
Date: 2007-02-20 02:06 am (UTC)I got it off French ebay for 5 euros!
Re: Oy.
Date: 2007-02-20 03:42 am (UTC)I'm impressed with those sample photos on the 120N.
Re: Oy.
Date: 2007-02-20 04:03 am (UTC)I do not know the dif between the FN and the SF.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Holga-120-FN-120FN-Medium-Format-Camera-w-Flash-NEW_W0QQitemZ280082410310QQcmdZViewItem
Re: Oy.
Date: 2007-02-20 04:14 am (UTC)From what I could find, this seems to be the difference:
"a brass tripod socket, bulb exposure setting, and foam cushion film tensioner"
Re: Oy.
Date: 2007-02-20 04:16 am (UTC)I just gone and learn-ned somethin'
aaaaaand it's past 4 am here.
G'nite!