haha! i'm sorry! i've been under the impression there has to be some "real, obvious" subject in a picture for it to be considered a subject. for example, a silhouette in a sunrise shot, or perhaps a bridge, a boat, or some rocks in the foreground amidst the larger areas of sea and sky. i thought those rocks in my pictures are all over the place and so don't really fit that description.
if the landscape were a subject, would a boring shot of just a horizon line with clouds in the sky and waves in the sea — and nothing else — be acceptable?
or, if you could kindly refer to
this previous picture i'd posted, could it be similarly said that the landscape or scene was the subject?
not trying to challenge you, just confused about this subject thingy.
thanks for advice on the gnd, i've read about it from the very useful articles and guides in this forum. but i'm only have a point-and-shoot canon powershot, so i had to rely on post-processing. in fact i had already done negative exposure compensation while taking the shot. in fact, i find myself doing negative compensation most of the time. perhaps this means my cheapo camera has a rather serious problem of metering with overexposure? the histogram seemed fine while reviewing after the shot though, so i thought the highlights weren't blown. perhaps it's my pp that blew them. haha.
i don't mean any offense but while i do agree that the black-and-white version is nice, i feel that the colour version has its merits too. the black-and-white gives me a stronger "artistic" mood... as if i were supposed to look at it artistically and appreciate the more... "technical" aspects of the picture, for lack of a better word; in the colour version, personally i feel particularly drawn to the contrast between the blue in the water and the grey rocks, so i kinda like it as well.
however, many thanks for taking the effort to work on my picture and to analyse with such depth. much appreciated!
nope, who said there must be? some shots work best without one particular subject, especially panos. in some sense, i do mean it when i say that the landscape IS the subject, the interesting formations in the foreground already make the picture interesting. you can't just apply one simple concept to everything.
take for example, the rule of thirds *can* fail, placing the horizon in the middle *can* work, using leading lines *can* spoil a picture. there are so many things that can be shot, why limit yourself with guidelines?
having one simple subject is a lot easier than arranging things such that they look and work well together. look at this world panorama pbase gallery
here, how many shots can you see with one single subject?
if the landscape were a subject, and you have a horizon line with clouds in the sky and waves in the sea, as you describe, i couldn't say for sure if the shot will be good, there are so many things that could vary in there, this is what makes photography interesting. two people could take the same subject, same scene at the same place, and yet one might produce something significantly more interesting than the other. to this, i cannot answer you, but if the clouds are interesting enough, why not?
this is one of my favourite skyscape shots, it is something like what you describe. with clouds in the sky. the clouds also not really a single piece of subject..
link here
for your previous one, i thought i had commented there, you can see the comments and that will tell you what i think of that shot. in some sense there while indeed, the landscape is the subject, it is not interesting enough. have you seen abstract shots? what do you think is the subject there?
main reason why i convert to bnw is the blown out sky, bnw allows muchmore space for manipulation, and i do love having a sky with details. if you had managed to keep the details in the sky i'd agree with you for the color version, alas, i really cannot forgive the blown out highlights there.
histogram, while giving you a gauge for exposure, does not tell the entire story. the sky is relatively bright, so while your histogram may show a nicely exposed story, there will still be overexposed parts.
just like how if you take a person framed in the doorway, with the light from outside coming in. you can either get a silhouette, or a person with overexposed background, no?
anyways, if p&s is your limitation then i guess there's nothing much to say about that.. though note that you *can* get a gnd set, very ley chey though. check out the cokin website for more details. cheers.
