Little kid in airport
- Thread starter Shadus
- Start date
- Status
Disagree. Kid is positioned according to rule of thirds.
The structures within the building form a recurring pattern, and their massiveness serves to contrast with the smallness of the kid. Cropping to just the kid and the planes takes away something from the picture.
Picture is fine as it is. Well, maybe if you do a B&W conversion...
The structures within the building form a recurring pattern, and their massiveness serves to contrast with the smallness of the kid. Cropping to just the kid and the planes takes away something from the picture.
Picture is fine as it is. Well, maybe if you do a B&W conversion...
Sorry, composition is way too loose for my liking.Originally posted by StreetShooter
Disagree. Kid is positioned according to rule of thirds.
The structures within the building form a recurring pattern, and their massiveness serves to contrast with the smallness of the kid. Cropping to just the kid and the planes takes away something from the picture.
Picture is fine as it is. Well, maybe if you do a B&W conversion...
great shot Shadus.......
the massive metal(?) structure making up the building really dwarfs the little kid, giving a sense of scale to the entire picture, and the 2 contrasts very well.......
So....
WE must shoot according to your liking issit har!?;p
Anyway, I think that a wider angle might be nicer~
Er...relaxz and coolz it guys.....i guess everyone here is just expressing their own opinions and techniques. All of u guys here are very good photographers (err....excluding me har ) There are lotsa ways to approach when taking a picture of the same subject. One might wanna do it in a slight different way as compared to another person. So, to each his/her own and let's enjoy the pictures posted here!! ;p
) There are lotsa ways to approach when taking a picture of the same subject. One might wanna do it in a slight different way as compared to another person. So, to each his/her own and let's enjoy the pictures posted here!! ;p
F
fierce_critic
Guest
It's a great shot, but it depends no what they photographer is trying to convey. If the photo is about the massive structure, then it's fine as it is. The kid gives a good idea of the scale of the structure.
If it's about the kid, then I think a closer view might work better.
Nevertheless, I still like the shot as it is.
Regards
CK
If it's about the kid, then I think a closer view might work better.
Nevertheless, I still like the shot as it is.
Regards
CK
I feel that the size is fine, but the composition has yet to contrast the massiveness of the structures/planes and the smallness of the kid enough....I would prefer to see less of the flooring, and shift the kid more to the left.
I liked the shot.
Initially I thought it would have been better if the reflection was minimised by a polarizer. At that angle the polarizer would have been quite effective in removing reflection. Then I though it would actually look unnatural without the reflection in the glass.
By the way, I would have concentrated on emphazing only one dimsion, in this case, the height of the structure again the boy, which I feel would be more focused. I hope I am not braking any forum code by doing this, but here's how I would have composed the picture, and included more space abot the boy if possible:
Just a suggestion. Hope Shadus would not mind.
Thanks.
Roy
Initially I thought it would have been better if the reflection was minimised by a polarizer. At that angle the polarizer would have been quite effective in removing reflection. Then I though it would actually look unnatural without the reflection in the glass.
By the way, I would have concentrated on emphazing only one dimsion, in this case, the height of the structure again the boy, which I feel would be more focused. I hope I am not braking any forum code by doing this, but here's how I would have composed the picture, and included more space abot the boy if possible:
Just a suggestion. Hope Shadus would not mind.
Thanks.
Roy
Coz i dun mind. Why should I. In fact, I love all the feedback here.
But there's one point I've to bring up.
In fact, a polariser was used. In this situation, I actually need 3 polarisers to effectively remove most of the reflection. There is 3 angles for this case where the light is being reflected off. (ok, dun ask me how, i checked many times with my one & only polariser). So... this pic is actually making the best (least reflection) out of the situation.
Also, to be trueful about it, the kid wasn't really intented. Coz I was trying to get the least reflection, and trying and trying...then pops up the kid, so I wait until he moved into position before snapping the shot
Actually, I'd be happy to represent you if you wish to bring an action against Roy for copyright infringement. Very reasonable sum of a new Canon EOS1D for the first hour and an EF IS supertele for every subsequent hour.
:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
Alamak! I did not use the modified picture for my own benefit leh! There goes my savings plan for the future Nikon X3 sensor-based DSLR....
:cry: :cry: :cry:
It's okay Roy, I'll also be happy to represent you in any action against you for a new DSLR with an X3 sensor (except the Sigma) for the first hour and each hour thereafter.
:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
Nah, you did good. I don't altogether agree with your crop though, in all seriousness. I think it loses a bit of the sheer size of the airport compared to the boy that way, but I also agree with you... lose the wall on the left Shadus!
How's sunny Seattle?
:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
Nah, you did good. I don't altogether agree with your crop though, in all seriousness. I think it loses a bit of the sheer size of the airport compared to the boy that way, but I also agree with you... lose the wall on the left Shadus!
How's sunny Seattle?
- Status