Pruners: seeing, yet not seeing

[michael_young3]

Flipping through some old negs, I came across one that I don't recall

seeing before, and wondered why I never bothered to print it. The

problem became evident as soon as the print went in the fix and the

lights came on, but not before. How very strange. I focused and

composed around that ugly stick twice now, once through the ground

glass, and now on the enlarger, and apparently both times didn't see

it. How does that happen???

 

I would pack a pair of pruning shears, but I likely wouldn't see the

obstruction if it happened to run safely through the center of view.

Besides, where does one stop cutting once one gets started?<div></div>

[ross_chambers]

If you check Photonet for answers you will be informed in the

sidebar of several advertisers happy to supply pruners for next

time. A world of convergence!

 

My experience was with a close mesh fence that I hoped to throw

out of focus relative to a distant subject. It was so obvious in the

neg that I never printed it.

 

regards - Ross

[peter_dendrinos1]

Michael,

 

This happens all the time. I will miss an object protruding into the image from the side, or not see the vignette, or something dumb. It is easy to do. I am so focused on the forest; I do not see the trees. It builds a case for taking an extra moment or two to use the loop to go around the edge of the ground glass and examine it very closely for surprises.

 

Pete

[brian_ellis3]

Looks like you have a job for Photoshop. It's been killing sales of pruning shears.

[User_503771]

I guess Photoshop is also a better deal than the crane required to get rid of the lightpole in front of the building, or the cherry-picker required to get to power lines criss-crossing the steeple of the old church....

[scott_walton2]

Use or get a longer lens and change your composition. A further walk down a

stream or what have you, may even render a nicer composition...

[stevewillard]

I never make such mistakes because...

 

I used to proof all my compositions right on sight with Polaroid no matter how trite the

comp is. Now I use a Sony digial Mavica MVC-CD350. Its a point-and-shoot clunker, but

it has the largest LCD (2.6") on the market, and the best LCD hood for viewing in bright

sun. It also shows the Zoom magnification factor on the LCD as you Zoom. Very few

cameras do this. I use this number to quickly determine what size lens to use from a chart

I have made. These tools allow me to quickly perfect a composition and catch my errors

right on site before I shoot with wet film.

 

Do I prune? Yep, but only when there is no other alternative. In the past 5 years I can

count the number of times on my left hand I clipped a few branches to make the shot.

 

Hope this helps.

[michael_young3]

Stephen, that *is* oogly! I'm not sure which is worse, the rock growing out of his neck, or the rope tied to your tripod.

 

Digital, you say? Well why not? :-) I wonder if I'll ever get to the point where I'll say, "Bugger the film. This is plenty fine."

 

I feel better already. Thanks.

[stevewillard]

The photograph I included is one of my llamas - just my trademark. I take two of them in

the mountains of Colorado for 10 to 12 weeks of shooting. They can carry up to 90

pounds of gear each. I shoot mainly 4x10 and 5x7, and the only thing I think digital is

good for is proofing, nothing more. By the way, the picture of my llama was not taken

with a digital camera. It was just a fun picture that had nothing to do with anything.

[brian_c._miller]

Stephen, you PRUNED YOUR LLAMA??? Oh, ouch!

 

Mike: yeah, I've done the same thing, but usually it happens with tall grass. I just usually ignore it when I'm composing, and then later I'll look, and, oops! I'm pretty good at recognizing the tree limbs, though.

 

Let's take a moment for a cheezy Photoshop moment. I've taken the liberty of hacking out the branch. The one thing I think when I see yours, though, is that even without the tree branch nothing really seems to stick out. What is the focus of the scene? Where is the eye supposed to go? (Yes, I too have many photos similar to this)<div></div>

[michael_young3]

Brian, It was, as they say, a slow news day. I should have saved the film and not shot, but I still wanted to try. Sometimes it works out. But why this shot? Why this composition and subject? To my eyes, it still doesn't stand out as a for sure waste of film, lacking all hope of redemption. The triangular view of the river, seen through arching branches, with a mossy bridge abutment in the far middle distance had a chance of working. This one didn't, as did so many other shots I've taken in the past, and will again in the future. On the other hand, some worked out better than I had hoped. I'm still regularly surprised at the gold, or garbage, I find in the stack of negs.

 

The foreground is too cluttered, even with the ugly stick pruned away. That kills it for sure. Otherwise, if the rest of the image was more compelling, I would try a bit of burn in the sky and upper right; maybe a grade or two more contrast to tone done the opposite shore and bring out some glitter in the rapids. But why bother with a test print of such obvious garbage? Simple. My eyesight apparently isn't as acute as yours, and obvious garbage sometimes isn't. Not obvious, that is.

 

I welcome your further thoughts. I'm not in this to burn film and singlehandedly keep EK's film division afloat.