Composition in Color V.2 (yes, its a photograph.)

Before anyone else asks the question, I will get it out of the way.

 

Q: "What does this have to do with photography?"

 

A: "It is a photograph...taken with a camera.

 

Any other questions? See technical details.

would swear its an illustration...

interesting

It's interesting to know that this is not a digital creation. A prove that you don't need a computer to create this kind of images.

 

But on the other side, it also proves that what **really** matters is the result (quite nice in this case), not how it was created. From that point of view... keeping on questioning if it's a completly digital creation or not is a neurotical matter.

I have two similar images like this one in my color folder. I have been through this illustration vs. photograph routine before. As much as I can "strongly agree" that this has the look of a graphic illustration, I assure you that it is a photograph.

 

I think tomorrow I should post a comment with a small version of the original digital file straight from the camera. It is very similar to what you see here minus color enhancement, cropping and spotting.

Too complex for me Ken....I'll stick to the elementary shapes, triangles, rectangles, circles and the like.

I missed this series, Rick. I think it was one of your most interesting and original ideas, and like the others this one is very well executed, with a great flair for composition in this case.I would be very interested to see the same image with the bottom right pink little rectangle in black, and another version in orange (same orange as top left). Right now, I feel it catches a bit too much attention, so that the composition (which is in all other aspects complex but excellent) ends up with 2 focus points.

An interesting alernative was to have the bottom right corner of the top left rectangle aligned with the center of the ball AND with the bottom right corner of the yellow area, then the corner of the frame.

With your permission, I feel there is a lot to study in here, and I'd like to try a few alternative compositions in PS. Regards.

My comment is more compositional...I feel like the pink in the bottom right is too much, unnecessary even. It really pulls at my eye. I would get rid of it and keep going with the red that is already at the edges. I would also carry the red up to fill in the little bit of black in the top right corner. These little corner aberations create visual islands where your eyes get stranded like Gilligan. Typically, we are trying to create elements which lead our eyes OUT of the corners and into the center of the frame. Yes?

I welcome your contribution. I agree with the pink comment. I think either in red or just gone altogether (black).

 

Scott -- Good suggestions as well. Of course, if I remove the pink square in the lower corner, I may be attacked by the anti-PS crowd.

 

I'll do it anyway.

 

 

Beautifull vibrant colors enhanced by the excellent lighting techniques. Suitable frame. I keep coming back to look at this. Eye candy!!

Rick - I like this very much. But as soon as I saw it I just had to download it and convert it to CMYK, and I was right. If you ever get a chance to publish this the conversion to CMYK will break your heart. But for our purposes hear in the land of RGB it is very nice indeed.

 

You have to do more than convert to CMYK. There is more color correction that is required when going to CMYK. I've printed two others in this series and they turned out brilliant..True not as brilliant as an RGB, but certainly not disappointing at all.

Very cool composition.The ball and its shadows are especially interesting.

This is not a photo

Rick - I never meant to imply that you couldn't get a beautiful CMYK reproduction of this image and I hope that wasn't how you took my comment. I was only talking about that moment of shock in seeing a vibrant image go flat when it enters that terribly small color space. A shock I've experienced many times before.

 

Again - Very nice job.

Jon Curtis -- Your ill-informed comments and ratings are a waste of Photo.net bandwidth. I rate your portfolio 0/0. Which is exactly what you contribute to this forum...Zero.

 

You know, its really not my style to write this kind of comment, but I really find it quite annoying that you made such a faceless bold statement before possibly doing a little investigating. I invite you back to this image for a second review.

I know exactly what you are talking about. I've learned that further color correction is necessary before going to print in CMYK, and I still have some quite brilliant prints. Not as brilliant as the screen version obviously, but pretty darn close. Maybe, you can e-mail me your address and I will send you a sample print. Maybe someday, our great inventors will develop an ink that emits light much like the pixels of a computer monitor.

Rick, I think I understand howthis was done, and I won't mislabel it by calling it something other than a photo since you captured the elements with the camera with little enhancement post processing, I suspect.

 

. . . but it looks like graphic art in that it lacks depth except for the ball. For me, the ability to capture nuances of light and shadow - texture, mostly - are one of the great benefits of using a camera. So I gues the question is, why use a camera to capture this creation?

 

 

The question here might be, "Why did Rick Vincent take on this subject again?" Because I had success with it the first time around. Three photo contest wins, including a first place which won me a nice flash for my cam. Just yesterday, this photo was selected as photo of the day on another forum in the category of "still life." I won't beat the subject to death, but I was curious to see what other kind of composition I could put together. At least its not "another" picture of a flower or a sunset.

OK, I've had a few photo contest winners that didn't even get a '5' average here, so we know where that's at. Seriously, contests often are influenced by the 'I don't know how you did that so it must be cool' school. If the judge(s) had some interest / experience with this sort of thing, I wonder how they'd rate it COMPARED TO OTHER SIMILAR SHOTS (technique and composition).

 

All boils down to genre and concepts of originality. I guess I should still give a big hurumph and congratulate you anyway. :-)

Your comments are always welcome.

Looks like a 6'er to me. Seems some folks don't appreciate photography used for painting or visual arts. Great work.

Great Idea!

Sorry for letting you down on the PS removal of the little triangle, Rick. As for what I had in mind to try, it just wasn't good, so nothing new - excet I still like this series very much.

To answer Carl's question about the point of shooting photographically an image that LOOKS almost computer generated, I'd just say this: why not ?

If it looks good in the end, I find that a very original concept in times where computers are rather trying to produce what only cameras used to be able to capture... To me, that's humour! :-)

An amusing twist isn't it. A computer with all its capabilities, trying to emulate the lesser technology of a camera.

Cool graphic *photo* but maybe less saturation as its very bright. Good imagination.