A Matter of Perspective
Which do you prefer?
A.
B.
If you don’t like either, would something between the two be better?
As I’ve mentioned previously, I’ve been playing with my camera a lot, but still have some issues with perspective and cropping.
18 Responses to “A Matter of Perspective”
Leave a Reply
Powered by WordPress
Loading ...
October 1st, 2008 at 8:58 am
meesh, i’m a no-nothing, not even wanna-be photographer, but in my limited point-an-click-in-auto-mode “experience” so far, 75% of good shots is a great subject (object of focus). none of them apples is particularly appealing to me, tho that’s coming from a feller who tends to scowl at healthy food.
food photography is an art unto itself and there are commercial photographers who specialize in nothing but that. all kinds of arcane prep goes into those things i think, including lighting an angles an wot not. i couldn’t even begin to guess what it might take to bump up the interest level (make it a stack of cheesecakes?mmm).
i am really keen to see more of your collection of knives on the wall tho, fwiw.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:59 am
know-nothing (gawd, i *never* correct my blawg mistakes. odd morning.)
October 1st, 2008 at 9:04 am
and/or a reeeally interesting perspective/angle. what if you were to take a shot of the knives from approximately the same angle, but a lil closer up with a part of the stack of apples in the background (defocussed). kind of like from behind, over the “shoulders” of the apples? does this make sense. bah. me tired thinking. right time to go to work.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:51 am
I like the first one slightly better. Makes me wonder what could be placed on that empty tablespace next to the apples.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:10 am
I’m a little allergic to those. I prefer Fuji or Gala apples.
Thanks.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:16 pm
C.
I get what you’re saying about the subject. Of course those were the apples I used in my pie, so those were the apples I photographed. I don’t think I particularly want to specialize in food pr0n, but if I’m going to make semi-regular posts on food, and have pictures with many of them, I’d like to have half-decent pictures to go with them.
And I’ve got a couple good knives, but no really good knives, if you know what I mean. So I’m not sure they’d be so interesting to look at. And that last pic you’re describing may be a bit more artsy fartsy that I need. (laugh)
Ilya, the dissected apples were placed there. :)
Nathan, you’re allergic for Rambo AND Matsu AND Northern Spy apples?
Weirdo.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
The first one is MUCH better. “B” is just a picture of apples, “A” is a rustic portrait reminiscent of fall harvest, and you can almost smell the apple pie.
Photographs with the object centered, except for a few cases of well done background balance, are boring.
Just my opinion of course. :)
October 1st, 2008 at 2:46 pm
The first photo is far better, and has more of a narrative going (I think this what Shawn was getting at). The second is mere apples, while the first is apples in a kitchen; in the second, nothing is happening, while in the first–maybe something will happen to the apples? What?
A good rule-of-thumb is the “rule of thirds”; that may be something to think about when you’re composing, tho’ you can get carried away with it. (I’ve taken some really bad pictures paying too much attention to the rule. Some people would say that’s not possible, but I have: too framed, too forced, too structured.)
A big thing is to think about what your picture is of–e.g. is it about apples or about apples in a kitchen or about a kitchen? Another thing I try (mostly unsuccessfully) to follow is the principle that ordinary points of view are boring–I think I’m stating this badly, so let me try an example: let’s say you want to take a picture of a mushroom; taking a picture looking down from where anyone would stand over it is utterly boring–you’re just showing everybody what they can already see. But taking a picture of the mushroom from a vantage point people wouldn’t normally observe it–from underneath, or right next to it, or some other odd vantage–is going to be more interesting and unique. (Last night I went to the USNWC trails and took some pretty dull pictures because it was wet and I didn’t really feel like getting too into the mud; on a better evening, I would have gone to my belly, mud be damned.)
I hope there’s something helpful in there, especially since I have practically no idea what the hell I’m doing with a camera. :-)
October 1st, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Try this.
A has a lot of extraneous stuff around the edges, and too much wooden board at the bottom. B is overkill. You want there to be space around the subject so it can live and breathe.
I would actually have preferred if there was more picture to the left, so that the apples could be cropped off-center more. But, my version is what I’d go for given the raw image.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Hrm. That link apparently doesn’t work, so: This one?
October 1st, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Ah… thanks MWT. You’re right about the shift–I was initially trying to get rid of the crap on the right side behind the apples because it annoyed me. I that’s what my focus was and why I had so much trouble with the image.
Shawn and Eric, I do know precisely what you mean. I think what was driving me crazy was I liked the way the light worked, but not much of anything else about the image.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Shoot, I just lost a long comment by surfing to your Flickr view. :( I’ll try to recreate it. Here are my thoughts on composition and design - and they are different than most, and only personal opinion so take with a grain of salt.
My attraction tends to be toward abstract and modern art and photography rather than traditional or representational work. Rather than framing a traditional thirds photo, my compositional preference is often to focus so closely that the image fills all the way to the edges of the screen or even slightly outside it, giving the impression that the image is so large and energetic that the picture can’t contain it. For a great example of this, see Birgit O’Connor’s art.
Also, again personal preference, a picture or photo is somewhat more attention-grabbing when it has a strong focal point that is a deeply saturated, brilliant color or a strong value contrast (light/dark). Your photo is all mid-range color saturation and middle key values. I might have played with a stronger lighting source to create darker shadows, or added a bright or deep colored bowl or kitchen linen to the picture.
Also, I would probably try to reframe it so that there was minimal background detail - a simple or repetitive pattern background - or I would have tried for a shallow depth of field image (low f-stop) to create a picture where the apples are in focus but the background is not, so the background details don’t compete for attention. Eric does a really good job of that with his photography.
Again - these are just my thoughts on design. I used to paint as well as do photography, mostly as research for painting - I miss it but don’t have the time or energy anymore. These ideas are about the photo I would try to take - but that’s not what this is about - we’re discusssing the picture you took. I actually prefer B - I like the level of detail that shows the grain in the apple skin and the droplets of water.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:44 am
Somewhat in between.I would like the first one if it were cropped close enough so that you could not see the edge of the cutting board. The second would be well-framed for people - most people try to get too much of the person into the photo, losing the face in a mass of details.
Now if I were taking the picture, I would have put a .45 on the cutting board in front of the apples. That would invite some commentary on what was about to happen. :D
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
John, I was making apple pie not apple sauce
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Piggybacking on Jeri’s comments: for shallow depth-of-field if your camera allows you to set priority modes, you want Aperture Priority (or Manual Priority if you’re comfortable adjusting EVERYTHING). In Aperture Priority, you can set the f-stop however you want and your camera will only worry about shutter speed. (You may still need to play with exposure settings depending on light.) And yeah, like Jeri said, you want to dial the aperture wide open for that shallow depth, as wide as you can get it.
Some of what Jeri talks about with contrast, etc. can be done afterwards in your processing program. If I’m converting something to black-and-white (or sometimes even if I’m leaving the picture in color), I like really pumping up the contrast setting before converting the pic to .jpeg or .png (you should generally shoot in RAW format if your camera lets you). If that seems like cheating or artificial: it might be if you’re wanting a reference photo, but for an aesthetic or artsy photo, the whole thing is a fake in a way: it’s not like there’s a “real” image, it’s all just 1s and 0s that you’re shifting around until you like the results.
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I want pie.
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
To address Eric and Jeri,
I’m not that good with my camera. I understand (kind of) what those things are, but I’ve never played with them. And I’m not sure how to play with them either, to be honest.
But I have to admit I’m getting better at screwing around with the images in photoshop. :)
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 am
Well, one of the advantages of digital is that you can start playing around with things in the camera and it’s free (as opposed to film where each shot might cost you thirty cents–more or less, depending on what kind you’re using). You end up with a blown-out, overexposed shot or something that looks like the back of your lens cap–button click, done, change the settings, try again, no biggie. (Unless it’s your cousin’s wedding, but you wouldn’t do experimental photography during something like that anyway, would you?)