Photo/Photographer thread.

[Veebee]

You have set the bar too high - we can't keep up anymore   DSC00107.JPG

 

no competition at all. we all just share a passion.

 

here's something from a while back. Had this photo used on a British Airways advert a few months back.

not a great photo so don't know how that happened but anyway, here it is.

 

[Taps]

A question for you fundis (Vivek, you listening?) In this photo I tried to apply Fibonacci’s rule. Not trying to be clever but trying to put into practice what I've read. If one applies that rule, does the para-glider add or subtract from the image? (The background hills do, but forget that for the moment).

 

Oh Ja: Canon 5D M3, 1/90 sec f/11 ISO 100. 24mm.

[Frosty]

A question for you fundis (Vivek, you listening?) In this photo I tried to apply Fibonacci’s rule. Not trying to be clever but trying to put into practice what I've read. If one applies that rule, does the para-glider add or subtract from the image? (The background hills do, but forget that for the moment).

 

Oh Ja: Canon 5D M3, 1/90 sec f/11 ISO 100. 24mm.

Do you mean like this?

edit: sorry for editing your photo

 

 

If Fibonacci's ratio is so "big deal", makes one wonder why camera manufacturers don't overlay the spiral on the display (they use the rule of thirds for their overlay - not a criticism, but rather a query.

Edited September 10, 2015 by geraldm24

[Madone69]

Do you mean like this?

edit: sorry for editing your photo

 

Untitled.png

 

If Fibonacci's ratio is so "big deal", makes one wonder why camera manufacturers don't overlay the spiral on the display (they use the rule of thirds for their overlay - not a criticism, but rather a query.

now as a complete noob, i am even more afraid to post my first photo

[Taps]

Do you mean like this?

edit: sorry for editing your photo

 

Untitled.png

 

If Fibonacci's ratio is so "big deal", makes one wonder why camera manufacturers don't overlay the spiral on the display (they use the rule of thirds for their overlay - not a criticism, but rather a query.

 

 

More like this:

 

 

[Frosty]

Is there a difference between the way you've drawn it and the way I've assumed it was?
Just curious.

[Rob Mortimer]

now as a complete noob, i am even more afraid to post my first photo

 

Don't worry - I had to google that and with Standard grade maths I'm never going to get it either

[DJR]

Dunno, but everything in that shot leads my eye into the centre area, that's where I would have liked the paraglider.

[Taps]

Thanks guys. I agree the para-glider is not in the best spot. There are two that I have edited out of the photo but left this one as my editing skills are not that great. Just wondered about it. The guys were flying around and are in most of my shots from that day.

Some may consider the "rules" pedantic, but I feel until I understand them and can apply them, I shouldn't try and break them unless what I see through the viewfinder looks great. In which case the rules are probably being applied without me being aware of it.

[Taps]

Is there a difference between the way you've drawn it and the way I've assumed it was?

Just curious.

 

Ja, the way I photographed it the para-glider and clouds formed part of the loop, with the foreground angled as part of the lower spiral. I couldn't argue that the way I drew it flows better than the way you drew it. I suppose it's one of those things open to interpretation.

[Frosty]

Ja, the way I photographed it the para-glider and clouds formed part of the loop, with the foreground angled as part of the lower spiral. I couldn't argue that the way I drew it flows better than the way you drew it. I suppose it's one of those things open to interpretation.

Your post has made me go look at my recent photos to see IF they meet the criteria of the golden circle. Sadly many of them don't - so now I'm curious to see if I can apply it.

[JXV]

There are many different types of aesthetically pleasing composition and the so-called 'golden mean' only features in some of them.

 

Photographing to a formula gets boring after a while....

[Veebee]

A question for you fundis (Vivek, you listening?) In this photo I tried to apply Fibonacci’s rule. Not trying to be clever but trying to put into practice what I've read. If one applies that rule, does the para-glider add or subtract from the image? (The background hills do, but forget that for the moment).

 

Oh Ja: Canon 5D M3, 1/90 sec f/11 ISO 100. 24mm.

 

sorry had to step out to a meeting. My honest opinion, take the para-glider out. The image is well balanced with the mountains on the left and the tree on the right. The clouds fill the centre space and having the para-glider dead centre will probably add "clutter" to the image.

 

If you wanted the glider as your main subject, then it would have been better to get him closer in the frame to the right, but without the tree in the frame.

[Taps]

A portrait of a local we call Father Christmas, photographed in the local shopping centre parking lot, sitting on his bike.

 

1/320 sec f/4. ISO 400.105mm. All natural light, no reflectors etc.

 

 

 

[Rob Mortimer]

Taken off the coast of Cebu, Philippines

 

[Veebee]

From Arniston / Waenhuiskrans in the Overberg.