[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

There are lines going through the thirds as well. Thinking that everything has
to be on the thirds is a common mistakes when it comes to interpreting this
"rule".

Yeah, I noticed that after I said it. But still you can see what he was trying to
say. At least I can. And you really have to "imagine" the lines you're talking
about there - which really, you can do with any image that has lots of contrast
and detail.

And as for turtle's sophomoric jab: you have to be able to understand the rules
before you break them. Breaking them willy nilly just to "stick it to the man" is
just infantile.

I totally disagree with that. What looks good, looks good. Rule or no rule. So,
nya-nya-nya..

[Tesselator]

Here's another one from me. (No Thirds! )


While this may look like background removal - it's not. It's just a straight shot of
aka-gai sitting on a black surface, brought in, cropped, scaled, and JPegged. Some
specular highlights got munched in the raw conversion process but I like it like that.

Looks so pika-pika yummy!

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by ARENA 

One of the few images of yours I am not feeling the love for. Probably because a: I see what you did there and b: because that lead to the shot loking artificial. Just, for me, not in a way I like.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Nice shot. Composition is a bit off, but I suspect that you only had a second or so to get it into the camera. Also, the blacks are cold, at least on my screen. If you have the RAW file then you might be able to rescue some detail there.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

I totally disagree with that. What looks good, looks good. Rule or no rule. So,
nya-nya-nya..

That's true. However, by knowing the rules you give yourself a much better chance of achieving a better result then you have by just hoping for the best.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

OK guys. Have at my girlfriend again

Too many distractions for me in what needs to be a very simple shot. I'd personally either crop far tighter or would chose a different background. I know you were just playing about, but for a fashion or beauty shot the hair would need serious attention and the t-shirt needs proper fitting.

[Mastrap]

Little Portugal, Toronto

Desaturated, with a 50% dark red layer.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

That's true. However, by knowing the rules you give yourself a much better chance of achieving a better result then you have by just hoping for the best.

I agree. You can stumble into pictures that look good, or you can make them look good by using (or intentionally violating) those rules of thumb about lighting, composition, design, etc. Knowing the rules lets you use them in either direction, lets you get a more striking effect from intentionally violating them, and allows you to understand (and be able to express) why you composed the way you did.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

Too many distractions for me in what needs to be a very simple shot. I'd personally either crop far tighter or would chose a different background. I know you were just playing about, but for a fashion or beauty shot the hair would need serious attention and the t-shirt needs proper fitting.

Very true. That bar going through her is absolutely disgusting

But yes, this was simply playing about. The loose top even stemming from being dressed for study while coming down to the shoot as it finished. Only the makeup and lighting were arranged here. No fashion, no direction - just playing around.

I reckon this shot is better (from about 10 taken in less than thirty seconds as we were packing up), but I decided to post the medium shot instead as this is far to similar in composition and pose to the earlier ones I posted:



If neither falls in taste there are more experimental ones to be found on my photostream.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I agree. You can stumble into pictures that look good, or you can make them look good by using (or intentionally violating) those rules of thumb about lighting, composition, design, etc. Knowing the rules lets you use them in either direction, lets you get a more striking effect from intentionally violating them, and allows you to understand (and be able to express) why you composed the way you did.

And that's really the best way of saying it.

Know your rules so you can violate them knowing when and why you should.

[Mastrap]

^^ Yeah, that's much more like it. Hair still lanky, but I can see how and why you took that shot.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

^^ Yeah, that's much more like it. Hair still lanky, but I can see how and why you took that shot.

I agree. This picture tells a much clearer story than the longer shot. And it's a cool story too.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

That's true. However, by knowing the rules you give yourself a much better chance of
achieving a better result then you have by just hoping for the best.

Knowledge is power true enough. On the other hand native intelligence withstanding,
man's expressive nature is often curtailed and stymied by attempting to conform to
some rule or set of rules that were "made up" by salesmen, analysts, or those seeking
control. I think that applies here! Sure, know all the rules of symmetry, organization,
abstraction, and etc. and smile when you land on one or even claim them but no need
to "heed" them nor conform. At least that's how I see it.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

If neither falls in taste there are more experimental ones....

I like the 1st one better. That custard in her eye is too noticeable and distracting
for close ups. It's a good effect for torso and full-body shots - distracting for busts
and close-ups.

[- - e r i k - -]

Custard?

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

Knowledge is power true enough. On the other hand native intelligence withstanding,
man's expressive nature is often curtailed and stymied by attempting to conform to
some rule or set of rules that were "made up" by salesmen, analysts, or those seeking
control. I think that applies here! Sure, know all the rules of symmetry, organization,
abstraction, and etc. and smile when you land on one or even claim them but no need
to "heed" them nor conform. At least that's how I see it.

The rules of composition have evolved over the centuries, been developed by artists starting in the late middle ages. It really has nothing to do with salesmen or controlling, it has everything to do with knowing one's craft. Only when you control your tools can you create art. You can express yourself a hell of a lot better when you have the skills to do so.

[Tesselator]

Huh? Can you listen to what you just said? A rule has nothing to
do with rules is what you essentially just said. Rules do not equal
education - although western culture would have us all think that
they do. Rules also do not equal skill - the two are almost opposites.

--
Erik, Banana cream?

[- - e r i k - -]

Young and Old:

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

Huh? Can you listen to what you just said?

What he said was perfectly eloquent, much unlike your own post there.