"James B. Davis" <jbdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 20:37:16 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> > wrote/replied to: > > This one's been bothering me for a few days, and I really wonder about > it all... > >>Jim Davis -- Ginza Umbrellas -- Oh, cool. Fun, fun, fun. Nice of >>them to go to all that trouble to build you this shot, eh? :-). Needs >>to rotate about 1.7 degrees counterclockwise though. And maybe be >>warped for perspective correction? Haven't tried it to actually see. > > ...so a little bit of thought requred here, to get us away from the > nostalgia and list introspective going around... > > "Needs to be rotated" - why? Is that so you think the bottom edge is a > horizon? While I'm not in any illusion that this is an award winner, I > personally think having the edges all at completely different angles > and the whole shot not looking 'boxed' gives is a bit more life. > > "Warped for perspective correction" - why? This one I've really got a > problem with. I mean, the perspective is what a lens gives you > naturally enough. Just as our own eyes do. It's based on angle and > position and focal length as to how it ends up looking in a 2D image. The *really* short answer is that I thought it would look better. I started out with the very thin wedge created at the bottom of the frame by the skew between the frame edge and the edge of the floor below, or whatever that is. I'm still pretty sure I'd prefer that. The perspective correction suggestion came from noticing where the rest of the straight lines would be left after the rotation. Possibly there's no benefit to squaring it up even in my view -- as I say, I haven't actually tried it. Lots of architectural photographers use view cameras specifically for perspective correction; I really don't feel like I'm out in the cold here being interested in it. I don't claim it's the "only" way or the "right" way to do things, but I certainly think it's a legitemate technique to consider, even though 35mm cameras don't directly support it generally. > So my question is why do some people think so squarely? Surely a > horizon should look level, that's something we all agree on. But when > shooting from above, is there some 'rule' that says the bottom plane > must appears as a horizon, ie. level? > > For me, doing so would just make it more static and boring. See, if I > leveled the bottom, the other three sides would still not square up. > Since there hasn't been many other reviews this week, I just wondered > what you all thought about this sort of thing. It almost sounds like you're missing what I mean by warping for perspective correction. I perfectly well *could* make the sides all come out square. And I could easily be pretty square-headed. > Believe it or not, I actually think hard about any rotating or warping > of images and it's effect, and go to the trouble of trying them > different ways at times. The end result is 'my art', that which I have > chosen to display. I certainly believe that, in general, you think about the choices you make. And I agree *totally* that it's your art and your choice. Still, the purpose of commenting on photos in the gallery is to suggest other people's ideas to the creators of the works on display, isn't it? Nobody said you or anybody else had to *accept* these ideas of course. > It's interesting then for me to hear how someone else thinks my image > should look, and that's why I keep contributing to the gallery. And of > course it makes me think more about an image, and perhaps learn > something such as below: Yes, that's the way I think about it too. I've certainly had comments made about my photos that I decided I didn't agree with in the past. > While writing this all up and rethinking my own photo, I wish now > that I had more of the wall on the left and bottom. I could then > have the brollies occupying more or less a 2/3rds of the frame, > which I feel would have helped this image. But, this constraint was > more or less due to not having a wider angle lens, and of course > wanting to show as many brollies as possible to impress. Maybe this > is a 'less is more' type of scene. > > I also think perhaps an even greater rotation of the frame would > have helped. I did manage to include the word 'Ginza' in the shot > though :-) Trying to imagine what that would look like, it does sound interesting. I might have liked it better than this version also. > I played with the white balance quite a bit. I had diffused sunlight > from above, and tungsten store lights at the bottom. One way really > dulled the umbrells colours, the other way made the tungsten look > horribly yellow. I ended up half way between. I find the color balance somewhat difficult in this shot, but I wasn't sure what to say about it; in particular nothing is "wrong" and I'm not sure how to change it so *I* would like it better. But it's strange in a specific way I've seen before but don't have a word for. I couldn't find anything to *say* out of that, so I just steered clear of the whole issue. > BTW, the umbrellas were not paper. If you look closely you can see the > fabric tabs that are used to keep them closed. These were real > umbrellas used for a rainy season display of course. Yes, I can see them. I was mostly assuming they were ordinary umbrellas, but without thinking about it much. > Oh well, send the thing... Thanks for the meta-comments, they're interesting. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
