Furniture - Cooper's comments

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tony Cooper, Jun 10, 2013.

  1. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Benches seem to be the popular choice for this group. Some done
    better than others.

    SavageDuck starts it off nicely with a well-done black-and-white
    conversion (01). Nice black blacks. Good capture of shadows. I like
    the extra area to the right to place the objects as part of a scene
    instead of the only subject of the scene. The second image (02) is a
    bit too much for me. It's like yeah, there's some furniture there,
    but what's the subject of the photo? The SUV jumps out at the viewer
    as a distraction. The third image went by me the first time without
    noticing Elvis. Cute.

    KPetre's camouflage chair is a demonstration that we can find
    something to photograph where we wouldn't normally see a photograph.
    No one would ever take this photo unless there's a "Furniture"
    mandate, but it does work here. I like the "Swing" (we Hoosiers call
    them "Gliders") but it's hurt by the knot not being in focus. The
    4000/2.5 wasn't needed.

    PhotoPhartz: I care more about interesting photographs than I do
    about whether or not a shot meets the mandate. I don't think a violin
    is a piece of furniture, but I like that shot. Nice warm color and
    good choice of how much of the scene to include in the shot. It had
    me reading book titles and album covers. "Radio" takes me back to my
    grandparent's house and their floor model Zenith radio. Interesting
    processing and right for the subject. I wish I could keep my work
    area as neat as "Workstation". Mine includes a Logitec trackball
    *and* a Wacom tablet *and* a regular mouse. Two screens, too.

    "Radio" brings up a point about how we submit images. My screens (I
    have two) won't show the entire image without scrolling. The
    truncated view kinda spoils the viewing experience. An image set to
    800 px high will display all the image on most screens, but won't make
    it too small to display right.

    Bowser's 01 is another "I like the shot but don't see how it fits". I
    like photographs and photographers who find some interesting part
    about something mundane. The mandate just gives us a starting point
    and gets us out and shooting. OK, I won't say anything about the
    church bench. It's probably better this way. Another "glider" with a
    portable lemonade stand. A little too much mandate-influence, but
    sharp and good color. It needs a cat or a toddler or something in the
    image to add a focal point.

    Pablo's shots are difficult for me to evaluate. I like bits and
    pieces of larger things, but still think the photo should have
    something interesting in it to see. These are well done for what they
    are, but lacking in interest.

    Sandman's image almost makes it. If the table had been turned
    slightly so the wood grain paralleled the floor below it might have
    worked better. The slightly-off parallel lines kinda spoil it for me
    because it brings in discordance. The warmth of the color and the
    vignetting is good processing.

    Peter Newman's bench on the beach is interesting, but - again - I like
    focal points of interest...a person, an animal, or a bird. A
    "Furniture" mandate doesn't mean furniture has to be the only thing in
    the scene. It can be supporting. "Monhegan" does exactly that. We
    have furniture, but we also have a whole scene to take in. Nice
    diagonal line of furniture and a balance of light and dark. I like
    the grainy black and white. His "Old on the beach" also presents a
    scene rather than just an object. More on that later.

    Love Otter's stone bench. Excellent composition with that balance I
    like of lights and darks. That red dot above the hill should go
    because it demands that the viewer figure out what it is, and it
    doesn't add.

    My three shots were taken in a place called the "Miniature Shop". It's
    a store that sells dollhouse furniture. It's jam-packed with tiny
    furniture either completed or in kits. Most of it was wrapped in
    plastic packaging and in glass cases, and the owner's instruction was
    to photograph what I wanted but not to move anything, open any cases,
    or bring in a tripod.

    The skeletons were photographed on a table and the background masked
    out in Photoshop. The tiny dentist's chair (about 6" high) was
    photographed through glass without a CP. The poker playing dogs is a
    terrible photograph due to lighting conditions, but I like the
    subject. There was a store spotlight right above the diorama and the
    piece is glazed, and the rule was not to move anything and not use a
    tripod. Consequently, the whites are blown out. I could take a
    better photograph if I could control the conditions.

    I try to shoot "fresh" for the mandates, but if I knew "benches" would
    have been so popular I'd have gone to the archives for these:

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8z13ganaxna8mh7/vo3mAndPAF

    But, they may be considered to be "people" shots instead of
    "furniture" shots.








    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Jun 10, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tony Cooper

    otter Guest

    On Jun 10, 2:53 pm, Tony Cooper <> wrote:

    >
    > Love Otter's stone bench.  Excellent composition with that balance I
    > like of lights and darks.  That red dot above the hill should go
    > because it demands that the viewer figure out what it is, and it
    > doesn't add.
    >


    Possibly so. But if you were a golfer, you'd know what it was. If
    you were a hard-core golfer, you might even recognize the place -
    Bandon Dunes. Possibly I should have chosen a shot with the
    background in focus, but I liked this one for whatever reason. Didn't
    have much else in the way of furniture, except shots of my tent.
    otter, Jun 11, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tony Cooper

    PhotoPhartz Guest

    Tony Cooper <> wrote in
    news::

    > "Radio" brings up a point about how we submit images. My screens (I
    > have two) won't show the entire image without scrolling. The
    > truncated view kinda spoils the viewing experience. An image set to
    > 800 px high will display all the image on most screens, but won't make
    > it too small to display right.
    >


    That's a good tip. Thanks. I was so used to seeing it in my viewer and
    didn't think about the reduced screen real estate of a browser.

    Thanks for your other comments as well.

    --

    Pat

    email: phartzATcoxDOTnet
    PhotoPhartz, Jun 11, 2013
    #3
  4. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 18:21:59 -0700 (PDT), otter
    <> wrote:

    >On Jun 10, 2:53 pm, Tony Cooper <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Love Otter's stone bench.  Excellent composition with that balance I
    >> like of lights and darks.  That red dot above the hill should go
    >> because it demands that the viewer figure out what it is, and it
    >> doesn't add.
    >>

    >
    >Possibly so. But if you were a golfer, you'd know what it was. If
    >you were a hard-core golfer, you might even recognize the place -
    >Bandon Dunes.


    Well, my house faces the 8th tee of a golf course, and I was a playing
    member of the club for 15 years when it was a private course. Never a
    good golfer, you understand, but a golfer.

    I live in Florida where there's not as much change in elevation in the
    entire state as shown in your one image.

    While I traveled quite a bit on business, I never traveled with clubs.
    >Possibly I should have chosen a shot with the
    >background in focus, but I liked this one for whatever reason. Didn't
    >have much else in the way of furniture, except shots of my tent.


    I don't know why you'd want the background to be in focus more than it
    is.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Jun 11, 2013
    #4
  5. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:53:12 -0400, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    >Sandman's image almost makes it. If the table had been turned
    >slightly so the wood grain paralleled the floor below it might have
    >worked better. The slightly-off parallel lines kinda spoil it for me
    >because it brings in discordance. The warmth of the color and the
    >vignetting is good processing.


    Thinking about this, and looking at it again, I'd like to see the
    grain either parallel the floor grain or be at right angles to it.
    It's that slight difference that doesn't sit right with me. Following
    or opposing, but not just a bit off.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Jun 11, 2013
    #5
  6. Tony Cooper

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Tony Cooper <> wrote:

    > Sandman's image almost makes it. If the table had been turned
    > slightly so the wood grain paralleled the floor below it might have
    > worked better. The slightly-off parallel lines kinda spoil it for me
    > because it brings in discordance. The warmth of the color and the
    > vignetting is good processing.


    Yeah, that was a total "Do'h" when I brought the picture into the
    computer. It's just a slight bit off and it bothers me. But I was making
    the kids ready to leave for school, so there was no time to reshoot.


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Jun 11, 2013
    #6
  7. Tony Cooper

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Tony Cooper <> wrote:

    > On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:53:12 -0400, Tony Cooper
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >Sandman's image almost makes it. If the table had been turned
    > >slightly so the wood grain paralleled the floor below it might have
    > >worked better. The slightly-off parallel lines kinda spoil it for me
    > >because it brings in discordance. The warmth of the color and the
    > >vignetting is good processing.

    >
    > Thinking about this, and looking at it again, I'd like to see the
    > grain either parallel the floor grain or be at right angles to it.
    > It's that slight difference that doesn't sit right with me. Following
    > or opposing, but not just a bit off.


    My thoughts exactly. The risk of trying to make them follow the grain on
    the floor is that with the perspective, they would still be in different
    planes, meaning that they wouldn't meet up in either way. With that in
    mind, perhaps a 90 degree angle would have been better.

    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Jun 11, 2013
    #7
  8. Tony Cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/11/2013 2:56 AM, Sandman wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Tony Cooper <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:53:12 -0400, Tony Cooper
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Sandman's image almost makes it. If the table had been turned
    >>> slightly so the wood grain paralleled the floor below it might have
    >>> worked better. The slightly-off parallel lines kinda spoil it for me
    >>> because it brings in discordance. The warmth of the color and the
    >>> vignetting is good processing.

    >>
    >> Thinking about this, and looking at it again, I'd like to see the
    >> grain either parallel the floor grain or be at right angles to it.
    >> It's that slight difference that doesn't sit right with me. Following
    >> or opposing, but not just a bit off.

    >
    > My thoughts exactly. The risk of trying to make them follow the grain on
    > the floor is that with the perspective, they would still be in different
    > planes, meaning that they wouldn't meet up in either way. With that in
    > mind, perhaps a 90 degree angle would have been better.
    >


    Play with a 45 - 60 degree angle. It has a less static look.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Jun 11, 2013
    #8
  9. Tony Cooper

    skp Guest

    On Monday, June 10, 2013 8:53:12 PM UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:

    > KPetre's camouflage chair is a demonstration that we can find
    >
    > something to photograph where we wouldn't normally see a photograph.
    >
    > No one would ever take this photo unless there's a "Furniture"
    >
    > mandate, but it does work here.


    Thanks. DanP convinced me to submit this one, I guess I should thank him as well.

    > I like the "Swing" (we Hoosiers call
    > them "Gliders") but it's hurt by the knot not being in focus. The
    >
    > 4000/2.5 wasn't needed.


    Agreed.

    Thanks for your comments
    Regards
    KPetre
    skp, Jun 12, 2013
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Priyadarshi Tatwavedy
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    809
    Blinky the Shark
    Oct 7, 2004
  2. betterhomeindia

    Big Savings On Furniture (Spl. in Office Furniture)

    betterhomeindia, Jul 3, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    416
    betterhomeindia
    Jul 3, 2006
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    426
    Stewy
    Jun 23, 2007
  4. Tony Cooper

    SI Comments - Cooper

    Tony Cooper, Jan 9, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    449
  5. Tony Cooper

    Steeples - Cooper's Comments

    Tony Cooper, Feb 13, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    222
    John Turco
    Feb 15, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page