|
|
|
moataz k. elkateb
{K:4971} 12/13/2004
|
I like the rocks position...good shot.
|
|
|
|
|
moataz k. elkateb
{K:4971} 12/13/2004
|
I like the stons position...good shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Jani Salvataggio
{K:27283} 11/5/2004
|
very beautiful!
regards
Jani
|
|
|
|
|
Kim Culbert
{K:37070} 11/5/2004
|
Thanks to all of you guys, for all the great comments and great ideas.
This is definitely worth trying again, taking all your ideas into consideration.
I think this could be a few different images altogether... again, thanks for the options!
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Goldstein
{K:21230} 11/5/2004
|
I think there can be a lot of room for improvment in the area of playing with DOF and as previously mentioned perspective. My first thought was wanting to see the foreground as sharp as possible. I don't mind that the buildings as the backdrop are out of focus. On the other hand using the buildings behind the rocks to give a distorted perspective... tower of rocks vs tower of floors might also have been interesting. Good eye to see such great lighting. Your exposure is well matched.
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Engström
{K:24473} 11/2/2004
|
I like the juxtaposition of primitive/modern although I presume the inukshuk is more recent than the buildings in the background :-) I like the alternative Cagatay is suggesting for a couple of reasons: closer to the inukshuk you'd fill more of the frame with the main subject; you could frame it agains the buildings as it would be possible to throw them more out of focus but the water could still be part of the composition. I guess it is a different shot altogether, not to be directly compared to the idea you had here.
|
|
|
|
|
Dirck DuFlon
{K:35779} 11/2/2004
|
I like the correlation between the buildings and the inukshuk - sort of primitive vs. modern vertical structure! The blurriness of the background kind of bothers me, though - I think because it plays such an important part in the composition I feel it would work better if it were sharper to better match the stones in the foreground. I see that you were already shooting at f/11, so I'm not sure how you'd get a greater depth of field, except maybe a longer lens and shooting the scene from farther away?
A digital solution might be to shoot two versions at the exact same exposure and focal length, with one focused on the BG and one on the FG, then combine the two in the computer.
All that said, it's a cool image, and I think a great concept!
|
|
|
|
Matt Pals
{K:1722} 11/2/2004
|
These are great shots with the inukshuks, kim. I agree with Catagay... I think lining it up so that the inukshuk stand inline with the buildings would present a great comparison. Something to consider next time you bump into one, as it seems to be inevitable.
Thanks for the comments... I recommend you take a visit to Pitt Lake. It provides great scenery and subjects. Herons, Osprey, Eagles,Hawks, Ducks, and even Swan are often found. If you want more info, just ask. its a hidden jewel in the lower mainland
|
|
|
|
CAGATAY ATASAGUN
{K:21564} 11/2/2004
|
Dear Kim,
I love generally puting the stones like this in equilibrium. Wouldn't it be better if you'd focused on the stones with colse-up and the backgroud as buildings ? ( just an idea)
Best wishes and good luck for your future shots.
Cagatay
|
|
0 
