Chinatown


Status
Not open for further replies.

danlin

New Member
Feb 17, 2006
278
0
0
#3
thk u!
urm let me think...(taken quite a while ago)i played ard w the brightness/contrast level. and oh ya. most imptly was the hue/saturation. =) anyways, this pic was taken w a sony 4.1px pns cam, still saving up for D70s... Lol.
 

westwest1

Deregistered
Feb 25, 2006
2,616
0
0
@ AMK
#4
danlin said:
thk u!
urm let me think...(taken quite a while ago)i played ard w the brightness/contrast level. and oh ya. most imptly was the hue/saturation. =) anyways, this pic was taken w a sony 4.1px pns cam, still saving up for D70s... Lol.

See...PnS also can take nice pics ma....but the sky like very plain leh...
 

danlin

New Member
Feb 17, 2006
278
0
0
#6
haha pns cant adjust anything ma, tts y the sky blown out.. lol
 

kentay

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
108
0
0
#8
the people and trishaw could be better placed.
 

danlin

New Member
Feb 17, 2006
278
0
0
#9
urm , i wanted a nostalgic feel of chinatown..
 

danlin

New Member
Feb 17, 2006
278
0
0
#10
kentay said:
the people and trishaw could be better placed.
yah thnks for pointing tt out to me. on sec look it seems like those pple din play an influential role in the pic.
 

scud

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2003
1,808
0
0
Singapore
www.fotolightbox.com
#11
u can also try to take in few angles or landscape mode.
if you hv a wide angle adaptor, use it so that u can include the other right side of the building.

some suggestion, u may try shooting with slow shutter (if yr cam hv shutter priority mode), mounted on tripod to reduce hand shake of course.
 

eikin

Senior Member
Apr 27, 2004
10,193
0
0
東京 Tokyo
#12
too much space at the bottom, the lady cropped on the right side is a distraction, and the protruding roof angle is a little too strong to be left at the top right corner ... composition is not well balanced.
 

Timber83

New Member
Jun 30, 2005
153
0
0
#13
Doesn't really work for me. Sky is overexposed, too much forground and its empty.
 

danlin

New Member
Feb 17, 2006
278
0
0
#14
eikin said:
too much space at the bottom, the lady cropped on the right side is a distraction, and the protruding roof angle is a little too strong to be left at the top right corner ... composition is not well balanced.

thanks for ur critque,i cld see fr ur perspective. But composition wise, it was interestin n diff to place it lyk tt. but of cuz, all these r subjective. =)
 

dingying

New Member
Apr 5, 2006
178
0
0
singapore
#15
maybe cropping out the sky will do the trick. for better composition also.:)
 

Apr 12, 2005
1,767
0
0
#16
I had the quite similar opinion as eikin above when I first saw the picture, felt that something wasn't very right and analysed what's wrong with it.

My take (intentionally to be critical) and suggestions to remedy :

1) Brightness attracts/distracts and the brightest area is the area which frist attracts any viewer. So the very white and bright sky really distracts. Try to dampen the brightness and/or use a cool colour (towards blue in colour pictures) to avoid attention.

2) Geometric shapes scream out for attention. The 2 bright white areas shaped like triangles above the roof call out for attention and distracts from the centre of interest. Try to include something above the roof so that no clear geometric shapes are formed and not blow/photoshop it out. Alternatively, exclude the top of the building to avoid geometric shapes forming with the edge of the frame if the area is prominent.

3) Lines usually lead the viewer's eyes and it's no good to lead in and then immediately out as it would divert attention and cause the viewer to miss the centre of interest at first look. The roof strong prominent edge led the viewer's eyes from left and then quicly out on the right. You may want to crop out the edge of the roof if the building is not your centre of interests.


The 3 points are the reasons why some many people noticed, got distracted by and talked about the sky and roof edge.


4) Should fill the frame unless the negative space has a purpose. The space (floor) in the foreground has no interesting subject and by showing greater distance from the main subjects, it actually discourages viewers from directly getting to the centre of interest. Stand nearer or use longer focal length or shoot landscape frame instead of portrait frame or shoot from a lower camera height (you must be fully aware of what the effects of each action are. E.g. standing nearer without changing the focal length or frame orientation would reduce the angle of view (i.e. capture less of the scene width). Using a longer focal length will reduce the apparent distance in depth. So you may want to stand nearer and shoot in landscape frame instead. Alternatively, shoot from another position so that there is something complementary in the foreground (but not something which would attract too much attention away from the centre of interests) to fill the frame. Some small dried fallen leaves on the floor may do the trick in some situations where those leaves appear naturually there).

5) Cutting people into halves etc. would give the impression that the "cut" person shouldn't be in the picture or that he/she was intruding into the scene and was un-intended to be in the frame. This means that he/she was not inteneded to be any of the subjects of interest. So avoid cutting. The woman cut at the right edge is calling for attention simply because she was cut. So she could be distracting from the centre of interests. Wait for a walking person to get completely in or out of the frame or adjust your framing before you shoot.

6) The message must be very clear and so the main subject(s) (centre of interests) must stand out in the picture through it's shape or/and size or/and contrast (brightness or darkness) and/or colour and/or position in the frame etc.

In one of the posts above, one forumer asked what's the main subect. This is because the building and people compete for attraction and it's not clear which one of them is the centre of interests. The building attracts attention by its sheer size in the frame and, because a large part of it being above the people, it's doesn't seem to play the role of a background and the main message of the picture could be architecture of Chinatown.

On the other hand, viewers are attracted to living things in the frame and it is especially so with human figures. As a result, the trishaw rider and the 2 women in the frame would be suspected as the centre of interests even though they're of a much smaller size compared the building. This is also reinforced by the positions of the trishaw rider and the main woman at the rule of thirds power intersection points.

With the big building and people competing as centre of interests, viewers are left wondering what's the main theme here. In photography, I realise that we can't have more than 1 centre of interests without sending a confusing message to the viewer. A centre of interests may consist of a group of a few subjects. So in this case, the photographer has to choose between the building or the people as the centre of interests and shoot it as such so that a clear theme is received by viewers.

If you want to have building as the centre of interests, then try to exclude people or have them very small and near the edge of the frame. You may need to shoot at certain time of the day and day of the week so that there is no people around.

If you want the people and what they're doing in an environment as the centre of interests, then you need to reduce the size of the building in the frame and frame it to appear as background by shooting from an appropriate distance, frame orientation, height (e.g. shoot from the 2nd floor of the hawker centre there), different focal length, camera angle, have the people appearing in the frame and place them at rule of thirds power intersection points in the frame.

Other ways to focus attention is the use of brightness and/or contrast and/or colour to make the people stand out from the rest (e.g. use of analogous and complementary colours, dampen the brightness of others etc.) etc.

The good thing about the original picture is the angle at which the building was shot. The building's horizonals across the frame give the necessary depth and 3-D view.

Just my personal opinion. Opinions differ among people.

If I were to crop the original picture, below would be my take but it doesn't look good as the angle of view seems to be too narrow because of how the original picture was taken. A wider angle of view would be better and be achieved if shot in landscape frame and standing at the appropriate distance.

 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom