| Author |
Message |
|
|
# Posted: 27 Aug 08 21:26
Reply
Thank you for your comments.
I found this picture which, in my opinion, offers a good balance between the sea and the sky, but you can express your ideas about it.
|
|
|
# Posted: 27 Aug 08 21:52
Reply
Hey there. Your photo is really great !!! Rules? Yeah I hate rules in photo...cuting off my fingers, so I can not creat what I want....Think the whole photoworld have change, this last few years...only the photographers of "the old school" are really hang up in the rules...we new amateurs are maybe not that serious abouth things "must be" like this or that. What I feel is corect in my photoes...I feel is corect for me....sometimes people really like my work...and than I say to my self: yeah, that was corect of me making the photo like this or that..trust your self !!!  ...maybe soon I start at a photographer class for 2 years....but really not looking forward to have a teacher who is going to tell me all this how things work, and what the rules say !! ...hmmm...I have allways been a rebell...and it is hard for me to change...cant learn a old dog to sitt !!! hehehe...I have never learn from eny teacher or other studdy about photo...have found out myself things...and love what I do...and see what all of you all make...keep up the good work dude !!! Willy the Broks
|
|
|
# Posted: 28 Aug 08 10:03
Reply
Here's a new photo.
In this one, the horizon is half-way between the sky and the sea. What do you think? Should it be lower or higher?
Th  is is exciting!! 
|
|
|
# Posted: 28 Aug 08 14:49
Reply
@ Virginia: according the rule, the horizon should be a little lower, at 1/3 of the total height. I have tried a new cut, and I feel it's much more interesting. If you send me your Email, I can send you the edited version.
|
|
|
# Posted: 28 Aug 08 14:55
Reply
This beautiful pic by Guilhem is, iI think, a very good example of the use of the rule in a very original image:
As you can see, the head of the deer is exactly at 1/3 of the width of the picture.
|
|
|
# Posted: 28 Aug 08 15:00
Reply
To those who cared to modify the photo I posted, please be free to post your version here. That's why I asked for your comments, not to read them in private. I know I'm not an expert and I love to learn from more experienced or creative people.
Best wishes.
Virgínia
|
|
|
# Posted: 28 Aug 08 15:04
Reply
@Virginia:
This would be my version of your photo (after a really quick edit):
|
|
|
# Posted: 28 Aug 08 15:09
Reply
I love it Bernhard. The sky looks much more powerful and closer and the sea further away.
Thanks.
|
|
|
# Posted: 28 Aug 08 18:01
Reply
TBM, I made an other photo at the same moment where you can see more of the sea.
But the sky was so great I made the first one because the great contrast of nature and human being. Here you see the other one, bye, Dieuwertje
|
|
|
# Posted: 28 Aug 08 18:03
Reply
Some more of my collection
|
|
|
# Posted: 28 Aug 08 18:14
Reply
It's a nice edit Bernard. Probably you used "unsharp mask" in PS with quite high settings because the halo effect at the horizon is clearly visible. You also remove the fence in the foreground and that's an improvement.
|
|
|
# Posted: 28 Aug 08 19:09
Reply
Can you explain what "unsharp mask in PS means? I'm at a loss!
|
|
|
# Posted: 28 Aug 08 20:23
Reply
@Dieuwertje: I see what you mean. Under those particular circumstances, your pic with a very low horizon was better. That patch of blue in the sky, absent in the other version, gives depth to the image. . But, as a general rule, I'd prefer the composition shown in the second pic you posted.
|
|
|
# Posted: 28 Aug 08 21:35
Reply
@Pansa:
Thank you. Yes, you are right, I used unsharp mask in PS and the settings were to high. It was just a quick edit in a work break.
@Virginia:
PS stands for Adobe Photoshop, an image processing software. Unsharp mask is a sharpening tool, an explanation on how it works can be found here:
URL
|
|
|
# Posted: 25 Jan 09 11:40
Reply
One of my pictures that don't follow the rules either, does that make it a bad picture, I don't think so 
|
|
|
# Posted: 25 Jan 09 13:15
Reply
Thank you very much. I have PS at the moment but I don't know much about it although I have already used some of the features. I'm going to read the tutorials, whose link you've indicated. Thanks.
|
|
|
# Posted: 17 Apr 09 16:02
Reply
Yes, much better. Thank you.
It is always important to know the rules, independently of if we choose it or not
|
|
|
# Posted: 18 Apr 09 00:00
Reply
I think rules are meant to be broken! Some people have commented on one or two of my photos that they should be cropped, but I didn't really agree. We need to keep some originality and inventiveness.
|
|
|
# Posted: 19 Apr 09 17:27 - Edited by: TGB
Reply
A very interesting topic - one which explores compositional rules that were discovered and pioneered by the artists of the renaissance period and which even today can arouse passions in people.
I have conducted a little experiment which approximates 3, so called, rules of composition - the rule of thirds, the rule of foreground interest and the rule of lead-in lines. My questions are; a) do they make an image more interesting, aesthetically more perfect or improve the natural compostion of the scene, b) should they be incorporated into the scene before capture or after capture, and c) is it photography or photo manipulation.
 
These two images are as captured by the camera and adjusted for levels and contrast. This is how the scene actually looks and is fairly faithful to the subject.
This image has been adjusted to approximate the Rule of Thirds and Lead-in lines. It has been heavily processed in photoshop.
This image has, again, been heavily manipulated in photoshop to approximate the three rules mentioned above - note the more pronounced foreground elements.
These images have a 'Chocolate box' feel about them and neither reflect the true scene as seen by the naked eye. So, the questions remains, do the rules of composition make a scene more aesthetically pleasing, pre, or post, processing (remember that the artists who discovered these rules were post processing them), or do they divide photography into two areas; pre-processing realism, or post processing artificial image manipulation.
What do you think?
|
|
|
# Posted: 20 Apr 09 16:34
Reply
me love woophy  ;
|
Online now: Guests 2, Members 0
