Seeing RED


Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 2, 2008
431
0
0
#1


The other day i went walking around my neighbourhood and there was this wet red mazda in a driveway, with a red umbrella behind it, and it caught my eye.. i find the fact that both the car and the umbrella are red made this photo interesting to me.:rbounce:

Would like to seek opinions on:
composition,
Does the idea work?
Any other way it can be improved

Thks for looking:)
 

mummum

New Member
Mar 20, 2007
263
0
0
#2
I'm not seeing any message from this photo. :embrass:
 

Oct 2, 2008
431
0
0
#3
I'm not seeing any message from this photo. :embrass:
I am not really trying to bring across a message, more of something interesting in which the red car matches the red umbrella:cool:
 

nigel84

New Member
Mar 22, 2007
897
0
0
www.flickr.com
#4
So does a pic with with no relevance and not taking as well.
TS, I see no idea within the shot, the composition is off as well. The slipper beside the umbrella is distracting. And if you hoping that this shot would be something abstract, it failed.
 

PyeeL

New Member
Sep 3, 2008
606
0
0
26
#5
Actually I do like the composition, the half framed car. The background spoiled it all. So now it doesn't work anymore.
 

Last edited:
Oct 2, 2008
431
0
0
#6
I intentionally included the umbrella as the car was wet, and it also matched the colour of the car:embrass:. PyeeL, which part of the background did not work?:dunno:
 

Headshotzx

Senior Member
Dec 14, 2007
5,841
0
36
25
Punggol
#7
The concept is very sound, but the title doesn't match.

If there wasn't a title, and if the photo was bigger to show the raindrops even more clearly, I would've suspected that the concept of the photo was about raining.

Title doesn't fit. Composition wise, I can't tell, something seems wrong here. Lighting is soft and nice (due to clouds), but I would've exposed the photo longer.
 

Oct 2, 2008
431
0
0
#10
correct me if i'm wrong ZX.

Headshotzx would have used a small aperture to 'get-rid' of the depth of field. Thus the longer exposure.
Ok. maybe but i had intended for the umbrella to be slightly OOF. tried it with greater DOF but was not quite the same as this
 

Sep 18, 2007
2,177
0
36
serangoon
#11
Ok. maybe but i had intended for the umbrella to be slightly OOF. tried it with greater DOF but was not quite the same as this
if you tried it with greater DOF you're meaning that the umbrella was blur-er than the picture you posted?
 

Mar 31, 2008
148
0
0
#12
doesnt a greater dof mean the umbrella should be Clearer, instead of blurrer
 

cyberas

New Member
Dec 10, 2008
7
0
0
#13
Actually the exceptionally white highlight on the side and front of the car is highly distractive for me, it looks far too digitally simulated. And I think everybody is right. The picture doesn't 'speak' to me at all. Bright bold colors doesn't always equates to a good picture, not even a good composition.:nono:
 

Last edited:

PyeeL

New Member
Sep 3, 2008
606
0
0
26
#14
doesnt a greater dof mean the umbrella should be Clearer, instead of blurrer
Yeah, you are right.
In case anybody reads this, because DOF is the Depth of Field. With more Depth you get less blur.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#16
The other day i went walking around my neighbourhood and there was this wet red mazda in a driveway, with a red umbrella behind it, and it caught my eye.. i find the fact that both the car and the umbrella are red made this photo interesting to me.:rbounce:

Would like to seek opinions on:
composition,
Does the idea work?
Any other way it can be improved

Thks for looking:)
The 'red-ness' of the objects in the photo does nothing for me. Therefore I would say that the idea does not work. Actually, when something is out of place (juxtaposition), the photo works much better. Like a person wearing red amongst many others wearing blue. Ahh, that kind of photo is more interesting. Imagine if you just took a photo of 10 people all wearing the same colour top. It's 'interesting' I guess, but it doesn't capture your attention. All become part of the background.

But this was in someone's drive-way, so I guess your options were limited.

I would have not focused on the red-ness. Rather, zoom in on the water droplets on the bonnet, thus making the background a blur, with the umbrella still distinguishable but blurry.
 

Last edited:

PyeeL

New Member
Sep 3, 2008
606
0
0
26
#17
Kindly explain how you GET RID of depth-of-field... thank you.
pplneedthelord meant to close down the aperture (bigger number), so that there would be greater DOF. And with greater DOF comes a flatter image. Note that he used the inverted comma('). So I guess he didn't meant to entirely get rid of it.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom