photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
ctfchallenge | all galleries >> Challenge 67: Close-up Photography >> Challenge 67 : Eligible > Moooooove Closer *
previous | next
Moooooove Closer *
31/10/2004 Paul Donovan

Moooooove Closer *

Milton Keynes

Out on a walk in the countryside today, I had to get fairly close and personal to take this as I don't have a decent zoom yet so that counts as "intimate" to me...it certainly seemed intimate enough! Re-submitted to pointlessly add a date 'cos the rules say so'.


other sizes: small medium original
comment | share
Rod 06-Nov-2004 21:40
"I find myself seeing Rod's argument which is troubling" Hehe, Paul you're in trouble now :-) My photos on my wall are all in frames about 2" apart, the frame isolates one photo from another & from the colour of the wall. The brain is easily distracted so frames are a device to make the brain concentrate on what’s in the frame & not the pretty colour of the wall or the shot that's next to it. On a monitor there's no shot next to it, our shots stand alone & with background colours like here at PBase which are chosen so as not to interfere with viewing the shots frames are not needed to trick the brain. That's why I strongly disagree with Lonnit about her thinking a white background is best for viewing photos especially on a backlit monitor as the brain has to work harder to concentrate on the photo. We have to train the brain to be able to see, & when we get into photography we train our brains into a new way of seeing (we call it the art of seeing)Our eyes start to see the way the light effects surfaces at different times of the day, the juxtaposition of a pile of dead leaves, a pile of rubbish, the beauty of the lines in an old persons face. Training the brain to see past a white or other colour surround on a photo seems futile to me, maybe we can train the brain to accept blown highlight (as some here have) Using the monitor as a frame sounds absurd who mentioned that little gem? White especially backlit on a monitor is the most dominant colour, it even dominates red in colour photography. (Look at blown highlights) Black is invisible to the brain, to present a colour shot to its best advantage & separate it from a background then why use a dominant colour when all we want a viewer to do is to have a really good look at our photos? I think Mikes comment that your shot would look good on a milk carton emphasises my point, you're either posting a photograph or you're posting a graphic, two very different fields of endeavour mate:-)
ctfchallenge06-Nov-2004 11:51
Thanks Mike, no I didn't try that.... I find myself seeing Rod's argument which is troubling...however, why do people hang pictures/photos in fancy frames on the wall ? Doesn't that detract? And don't give me that bull about the monitor being a frame cos my monitor is more like white so by your argument it detracts and when does a photo online take up the whole screen so that the monitor truly acts as a frame anyway?? :) I still think it is case by case - Iso's latest I agree the white detracts, some other pictures I have seen them improve by white frame added.
Guest 06-Nov-2004 02:37
I could just see this picture on a box of butter or carton of milk... Only the freshest from Brown Cow Dairy! Did you try it with the cow's behind inside the border?
Rod 05-Nov-2004 22:30
Have you all gone mad :-)? Viewing slides on light boxes is like looking at a contact sheet it's ONLY done to pick the shots worth viewing at a larger scale. Slides are for projecting onto a screen in a dark room & the slide mount projects as BLACK :-) Thereby enhancing the colours. White backgrounds lesson the impact of most colour shots & black enhances the colour (not that you need either) that is the way the brain & eyes work it’s not just an opinion, of course there are always the exceptions from the rule.
PS. Paul, I'm only joking calling your cow the silly cow shot:-) Even though I do think its silly:-)hehe
Nugar05-Nov-2004 20:26
Lonnit, although I'm too young (heehee) to have used lightboxes and slides (although I do use lightboxes for X-Ray reading), I would think that against the white of the lightbox, the slide cardboard border/holder would look dark gray or even black...
Canon DSLR Challenge05-Nov-2004 16:40
Since quite a few of us may consider ourselves "beginners" in the field of photography,
it's nice to see progress, both in ourselves and others, over a period of time. That's one of the purposes of the challenge---one can get encouragement, instruction and inspiration from it. Paul, perhaps a crop of just the cow's head ( which is in better focus) partially coming out of the image would work. Then, one would be tempted to pet him! Shu
ctfchallenge03-Nov-2004 18:44
Thanks for the real estate Paul! LOL!

I would think that most photo galleries would have white backgrounds as slides are viewed on a lightbox so that is what many photogs would be used to. Dark backgrounds are actually, IMO, more unnatural.

Thanks for the compliment. I'm still not learning as quickly as I would like though. Call me impatient - no, call me driven, that sounds better! LOL! ;) ~ Lonnit
ctfchallenge03-Nov-2004 11:30
Rod, i'm happy to provoke interesting debate and to make my 'silly' cow shot look popular ;) I don't recall calling your silly peg basket shot silly tho :)
Rod 03-Nov-2004 10:15
Good points Lonnit. I had a look at your link & can't believe a photo site would have a white background, I can see how you think it helped your shot though. The problem I see with the coloured frames is they are not neutral, so on a dark background which most photo sites would have they beg for some attention which is defeating some of the hard work you may put into a shot to establish a focal point. As usual each shot will have its own requirements as to what will look best. You have come a long way in such a short time. Well done Lonnit:-) Paul, I hope you don't mind us having a chat under your silly cow shot?:-)
ctfchallenge03-Nov-2004 02:36
Rod,
I used to use frames ALL the time last year, when I first started photography (Got my 10D last Sept). Back then I relied on the frames to spruce up things a bit to cover for my lack of experience and ability. Over the year I feel that I've grown enough to be confident enough to allow my work to stand naked. At this point I generally only use a frame if I feel the shot needs a white background b/c I know in the gallery it will be shown on a dark background. Sometimes the dark detracts from the shot. I finally got around to joining Usefilm.com last night and uploaded my first shot there. I selected the Contrasty Girl shot from this challenge. Their galleries have white backgrounds. I was pleasantly surprised by how much better I liked the shot on white. Therefore, I think I have a legitimate reason to still include the white frame where necessary, but I don't make it a regular habbit. Here's a link to the shot.http://www.usefilm.com/image/597915.html ~ Lonnit
Rod 02-Nov-2004 12:35
Paul, I must admit that I've been out of photography for well over 25 years & could be well out of touch. But I can't imagine you will see shots from the great photographers printed in books or Mags with frames or sigs on them. I use frames to hang photos on my walls but I class the monitor as a book or Mag as the shots are viewed one at a time & think the frames are a serious distraction from the photo. They're a bit of fun & can tart up a sub standard shot. One of the worst defects in digital photos are blown highlights so why put one around your photo? (White frame):-) I really do think they look immature. Maybe I'm just getting old :-) I do believe that if people are having fun then that's fine but I can't imagine serious amateurs putting frames on their good work. I see very few at Fred Miranda's site where the shots are of a very high standard. But we don't live long so we should all do as we please. I still think the Cow is a graphic & not a photo:-)hehe
ctfchallenge01-Nov-2004 15:20
My feeling is that if you are going to have the subject protruding from the frame (which is a very cute gimmick!) then it is imperitive that the area of the subject that meets the frame must be in crisp focus or it does not work. One's eye cannot be out of focus on the subject yet in focus on the frame at the same moment. All points of equal distance are in the same plane of focus and therefore must be in equal focus. The exception to the rule would be on effected shots such as when one smears Vasaline on the lens or uses a Lensbaby or other such devices. I would have enjoyed this shot very much had the focus at the frame point been correct. E for effort though! :) ~ Lonnit
ctfchallenge01-Nov-2004 10:57
Rod, not sure where you got the idea that photographers don't use frames to enhance the presentation of their photographs.....but i'm sure you've had this argument over and over :) Paul Donovan.
ctfchallenge01-Nov-2004 10:56
Only a bit better? :) Actually I kinda like his back being outta focus as it emphasis the effect of him coming out of the frame. All I need to do now is add a sig :) Actually this picture doesn't show the lighting on the day - it was early evening and I couldn't get a much wider/smaller (I always get it wrong way) aperture without going much further with the Iso (to 3200 perhaps?!). Was just an experiment from a walk out, not my best shot by any means...still learning new cam. Forgot (*) but added now ! Paul Donovan.
Rod 01-Nov-2004 10:55
As a graphic this is quite good, but to turn it into a photograph you need to get rid of that silly white thing. Geez I hope there's an asterisk on this shot I forgot to look:-)
iso320001-Nov-2004 09:26
I think this may have been a bit better with a smaller aperture to keep more of him in sharp focus. I particularly like the fact that Rod is going to hate the frame.