Martyr, Rodin Sculpture Garden, Stanford University

There are a couple of areas about which I'd like to hear otherpeople's thoughts on this photo.

* Do the hot spots from the sky detract significantly from the image,and if so would the best approach be to burn them in to match thesurrounding tones or crop more aggressively?

* Do the highlights from the fill flash help (in that they providemore definition to the shape) or hurt (in that they draw unwantedattention) and if they hurt are there other more subtle approaches forgetting light on the front side of the sculpture that may workbetter?

Note that the highlights are blown out on the print but theshadows have much more depth and detail than may be evident in thescan depending on your monitor's gamma.

"Martyr"by Rodin

Great composition and lighting. I think the exposure could be tremendously improved if you had use of a good tripod.

 

Good work

 

Any issues with sharpness in this photo are not camera shake, they're depth-of-field. The exposure was made at f/1.4 and I was focused on the eyes of the sculpture. The exposure was about 1/250 with a 50mm lens, and on the print it's clear that it's nice and sharp exactly at the focus plane.

 

Is your issue that you'd prefer a deeper depth of field?

 

Thanks!! (The photo was taken with a tripod by the way.)

 

Nice composition and use of fill flash. I would suggest cropping the hot spots, mainly to remove some of the background which would bring more attention to the main subject. Also, most lenses render sharper images at higher fstops. The added depth would define the subject's shape more and soften the harsh bokeh in the background. Try f/5.6 or f/8 and keep using the tripod. Or better yet try several shots at different fstops, it will help you learn how fstop can affect the image.

Hi Mark -

 

I am no one to talk on the technical aspects. But on aesthetics, I guess my opinion is as good as anyone's. I changed my mind a couple of times on the white spots, jumping from crop,to color, and then leave alone. Yes, they are jarring but I 've settled on the leave alone advice because I think the spots add plot material to the story of the photo.

 

 

I'm sorry, but the fill flash looks amatuerish and cheezy. This shot would have looked better with no forground detail at all and shooting straight on to the subject.

Unfortunately there's no good angle on this sculpture that yields a powerful silhouette, so going without fill flash never gave me a result that communicates what's interesting with this sculpture... but perhaps softening up the fill or taking it down a stop or so might help make it less intrusive.

 

(In a related matter, I'm amazed nobody has mentioned that from this angle the right shoulder looks a lot like a third breast. Had I seen it that way in the viewfinder I would have recomposed.

 

I've shot the stuff in that garden quite a bit both ways, with and without fill, and this was the result of experimenting to see if I could get a better result that way. Now I know what result it gives, and I'm trying to decide whether I like it or not. :-)

 

(Perhaps filling with a strobe from a glancing angle might place the specular someplace where it doesn't look like a reflection of a flash unit?)

 

What I'd love to do is shoot downward from directly above it, but unfortunately I can't get far enough up to get the right result that way.

 

Thanks again for all your thoughts.

I'd say that possibly a reflector in front of the head/body would give more detail to the statue. Wonder if that may create too much glare though?

 

Also I like the photo, except for the DOF. Too much of the pedestal is in focus and my eyes keep going to the rocks on the concrete rather then to the statue. using a smaller DOF (if you've got a 50mm f/1.0 that might be cool. (or not!) Otherwise mabe focusing further back on the subject would help, belly button or hip?

 

The glare off the leg is acceptable, too bad you cant tone down the squares at the top rear of the photo. Maybe shooting in the morning or evening when available light is low?

Cheers,

Keith

I'd definitely want to crop out thosetwo big highlight areas in the background.Cutting off the top portion of the photofixes them and loses nothing, IMO.

I'd also prefer more DoF. As is, the DoFtends to focus attention on the left arm and head, while the lighting tends to bring our eyes to the torso and legs. I don't likethe conflict, but maybe that's just me.

Extending the above comment about shootingin morning or evening, it might be interesting to shoot this at night, either with existing light (I have no idea what nighttime lightis like there) or with a couple of slaved battery operated strobes. Orperhaps even "painted" with a flashlightover a long exposure. You might be able tobetter isolate the sculpture from the backgroundif you can gain better control over the lighting.

I really like this shot. None of the highlights on the stature really bother me. I have mixed feelings about the really big one. You say that you've done a lot of work in the garden. Do you have any exclusively with availle light and no fill?

I'm a fan of Rodin, I'm also struggling with how to capture the form of the sculptures with or without flash. I think you've done a great job here. In case you're interested, here's a photo of Rodin's Rodin's The Burghers of Calais that I took in Washington DC.