New photo posted

[olliesteiner]

I just posted a new photo at the web site address below (Click "Tulips"). Comments appreciated.

Thanks, Ollie

 

<p>

 

http://www.web-graphics.com/steinerphoto

[roger_michel]

i know it reflects a depraved level of laziness, but i never bother

to look at photos that aren't directly linked to the site (or aren't

posted directly). i think poseters are doing themselves a disservice

by not learning how to make links. it's so easy.

[max_wall]

Roger -

Please tell us who do not know how , how. Thanks.

[giles_poilu]

<a href="http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?

msg_id=004LoJ">Please click here for the admin thread on how to make

your link clickable.</a>

[david_smith12]

Ollie,

 

<p>

 

I like your website and pictures. The lighting inside the tulip is

interesting. I don't know enough to make salient criticism about

photography, but I do like your photo's very much.

 

<p>

 

BTW. Copy/paste/go just isn't that hard to do. Sorry this thread

deteriorated from it's original intent to a "how to make clickable"

rant.

 

<p>

 

I encourage site reviewers to look at Ollie's stuff. You will find

it interesting...

[travis2]

Ollie, if I may?

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.web-graphics.com/steinerphoto"></a>

[travis2]

<a href="http://www.web-graphics.com/steinerphoto">Ollie's site</a>

[stb]

Olie,

 

<p>

 

I think there are better pictures on your site than the tulip one. I

agree with the previous poster that the lighting is interesting, but I

see several problems:

 

<p>

 

- the framing: the little one in the backgroung only adds distraction

and the main one leaning to the left, it would have been better placed

on the right, killing 2 brids with one stone :)

 

<p>

 

- I see on your site that you do colour as well. I really think this

one, once framed to get it simpler, would have benefited from colour,

with 3 well defined colours: black backgroung, the deep green and

whatever bright colour the flower is.

 

<p>

 

- Focus: the focus is on the leave on the left, whereas it should be

on the flower itself. That would give us the texture of the petals and

hook our eyes on the most interesting aspect of the picture.

Only an opinion :)

[richard_ilomaki3]

Ollie:

 

<p>

 

I like the bridge. I would like it much more if the foreground were

not out of focus and, to me, distracting.

 

<p>

 

The magic of Large Format is that one can tilt the front to get all

that in focus. A big price to pay,but great results.

 

<p>

 

Cheers

[kristian dowling]

Ollie, my impression was good and bad. I was a little distracted

by the various stems in the photograph, but I my attention was

caught by the neat lighting around the tulip head.

 

<p>

 

I think the shot would've looked better in colour as our attention

may have been more direct to the central point of focus- the tulip

head (if it was a bright red and the stems were green). In B&W, if

the central foucs point is not obvious enough, the viewer gets a

little lost and the impression level drops.

 

<p>

 

I am no expert in still life photography, but I think it is imperative

to watch everything in the photograph, as the viewer will most

likely know that still life photography is almost totally controllable.

You can control the elements, and mistakes are more costly,

unlike reportage photography, where many elements are

uncontrollable.

 

<p>

 

I also think you have some great shots on your site, and maybe

this is a new area to you. Still life photography scares the hell out

of me, because as much as I am not exactly interested in

photographying still life, I think I am also too scared for the

reason I gave above- I like control but too much is a real test, and

one I am not up to yet.

 

<p>

 

Good try Ollie. Definately better than what I could've done.

[olliesteiner]

Many thanks to all for taking the time to look and to comment on the

photo. Thanks also to those who told me about improving

my "clickability". Kristian, you raised an interesting point about

the various levels of control available to the photographer in

various forms. In photographing these tulips, the possibilities for

control of the final outcome seemed to lie somewhere between street

photography (on one end of the spectrum) and still life photography

(on the other). Had I purchased a potted tulip plant and brought it

home, I would have available all the possibilities of still life

photography. - I could place a background, arrange the angle and

distance of studio lights, and I could photograph the single tulip

with empty space around it. What I encountered outdoors neccesitated

that I work with the given lighting and the given crowded assortment

of leaves, dirt, tulips and surroundings that was there. In my SLR

days I made many flower pictures by taking a color shot in which the

flower head fills most of the frame. (Been there, done that.) Here

I'm trying for a different photo altogether. I'm wanting to explore

the mood and delicacy of the lighting such that color, with its vivid

impact, would be a distraction. Without doubt, a color shot can make

a very effective way to view such a colorful subject. But it's not

the only view.

[iván]

Thanks for sharing your site, Ollie.

 

<p>

 

I, for one, do like the tulip the way it is. I like to do this kind

of photos too and feel that your photo brings back the actual

experience in the garden, which IMHO means more than just picturing

the tulipe.

 

<p>

 

The same is true about the bridge photo. No doubt Richard is true:

other tools would render a much deeper DOF. But I can imagine myself

ready to go through the bridge and have no doubts that I would see

right what your image shows. A real success I seldom get to.

 

<p>

 

In general, I liked your site. The violinist is a little overexposed

perhaps ... though maybe not so on paper. But I liked your photos of

nature better than the ones of people which I like somewhat more

spontaneous even if graphical perfection suffers.

 

<p>

 

Thanks for the tulipe, Ollie. Keep posting, please.

 

<p>

 

-Iván