photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
Canon DSLR Challenge | all galleries >> Challenge 77: Single Light Source (Host: Michael Puff) >> Challenge 77: Eligible > * Shape study
previous | next
24-SEP-2006 © Cat

* Shape study


8017

Canon EOS 20D
1/100s f/8.0 at 70.0mm iso400 hide exif
Full EXIF Info
Date/Time24-Sep-2006 00:42:29
MakeCanon
ModelCanon EOS 20D
Flash UsedNo
Focal Length70 mm
Exposure Time1/100 sec
Aperturef/8
ISO Equivalent400
Exposure Bias
White Balance
Metering Modematrix (5)
JPEG Quality
Exposure Programaperture priority (3)
Focus Distance

other sizes: small medium original auto
share
Guest 17-Oct-2006 20:00
Thank you Olaf, Victor and Alexig.
Thanks for providing the feedback on this. Sorry I am so late to respond back on this, but I did check back for a while. Anyway, I have to agree with you on the "drab" part of this photo.

The main reason this is kept dull is just the reason behind the keeping the mystery hidden from common srutiny. A mystery photo is generally not made jazzy and zippy. The idea was that one will not notice the mystery untill one is intrigued by it. And once they are, the not-so-zippyness of this photo does not matter. I guess you could say I was aiming for a "not-to-be-noticed" photo. I hope I could explain my thought behind making this a dull photo.
-Cat
alexeig01-Oct-2006 15:41
Nice abstract
Canon DSLR Challenge30-Sep-2006 02:35
Olaf, I'll respond since some of what you said applies to me. When I first saw the picture, I saw only the thumbnail. There was nothing I could make out in the thumbnail, so I opened the full-sized picture. That presented something different, but I still could not tell what it was. The graduated fade of the squares on the right to plain background on the left piqued my interest before the optical illusion did, for some reason. That made me think I was looking at a shower curtain hanger and a bathroom wall, but the scale was wrong for that.

The slight angle of the ends of the shadow bothered me at first. I thought that might be a clue to the illusion, though, so I didn't mind. I don't think I'd rotate it further, and I don't think rotating it horizontal would have improved my experience with the picture either.

As to color, that hadn't crossed my mind until you mentioned it. Cropping? I may agree that a slight drop off the left might help. On the other hand, I think more space next to the open side of the ring is appropriate, kind of like leaving more space in front of someone's head than behind it.

-- Victor
Guest 29-Sep-2006 22:11
Hmm, on second thought (and look), I may have to disagree with myself... Just cut off a slight sliver on the left, so as to make the space from the left edge to the shadow the same as from the right edge to the 'ring' and then add a plain white border to separate it from the background - I think that should be enough and the best way to go - I think...
Guest 29-Sep-2006 19:43
Cat, I find this intriguing indeed, but I have a couple of thoughts I hope you'll take as constructive criticism:

My first thought was 'why is this in black and white? - the grey is kind of drab.' I was thinking that, say, a golden 'ring' on a blue background, would increase initial interest - then the mysterious shadow would reveal itself on the subsequent closer inspection, but if the image looks dull in a quick glance, chances are the viewer will not even get to the point. [I've colorized this in Photoshop with two 'Selective color adjustment layers' - one for the background (ring masked off)(Neutrals +40 on Cyan and -40 on Yellow) and one for the 'ring' (inverse of the other mask)(Neutrals -54 on Cyan, -22 on Magenta and +100 on Yellow) and found the result to be more interesting than the black and white version, ymmv].

Secondly, I feel the composition leaves room for improvement as well. Playing with the framing, I noticed how hard it was to get a naturally pleasing composition with these two shapes inside a rectangle. I tried two things: 1. Adding space to the right and top (extending the square pattern), while cutting much closer to the left end of the shadow and bottom end of the 'ring'. 2. Rotating the 'ring' and its shadow to a more diagonal position. As I don't understand how you did this, it may not even be possible to photograph in such a manner? While none of these hit the bulls eye, I did feel both versions were compositional improvements - just one guys opinion, of course...
Canon DSLR Challenge29-Sep-2006 15:48
Thanks Victor and I am glad you figured this one out :) Can't wait to see what you are working on. I like these kind of simple photo puzzles where one had to think "What the heck is this" or "how was it done". A food for thought. Intrigues the curious explorers in otherwise mundane shot. -Cat
Canon DSLR Challenge25-Sep-2006 22:46
Excellent! I think I've figured it out. If I'm right, I also have the explanation for why the left ends don't line up -- the bottom half is closer and therefore bigger. Another clue, obviously, is the shadow of the top half. It's there, but it might not be where you think it is. My first impression was that the illusion was done with mirrors. It gets me thinking of something along the same lines. -- Victor
Canon DSLR Challenge25-Sep-2006 18:18
Thank you all,
I am so sorry to keep you guys waiting.. But I didn't get a change to check the comments. Some of you might have already figured this out, but may be waiting for a confirmation.
To get you started to think: (will post the details in the forum, if I get around to it) the structure is actually made up of 2 pieces(a broken glass bangle), one of them is on a form board (with the squares) and the other is on a glass almost 3-4 inches above. The camera is directly on the top of one of the joints. The way the photo is shot, one set of ends are open and the other set of ends of both the pieces are fused where the highlight is (that the purpose of the highlight) and the way lighting is done, gives minimum shadow (visible, if you see carefully) for the lower piece on the foam board (which is top of the photo here) and has a exaggerated shadow for the upper (on the glass) piece (bottom piece in the photo) The PS work on this was to fuse the 2 peices with bright highlight and make the hightight continuous and make it look as one. I did not move any shadows. Lighting WAS the key to this photo. I am working of few more of these, will submit later...
Hope this helps! -Cat
jnconradie25-Sep-2006 16:19
I have back to this a couple of times... I like the shot and would of course love to know the explanation of how this was done! Are you going to let us in on the secret in due course. Interesting find and capture. Regards ~jnonradie
Guest 25-Sep-2006 04:18
A fascinating abstract piece. I really like the juxtaposition of squares in the upper right with the circular movement in the primary subject. Just as a matter of fascination, any idea how your lighting resulted in a half shadow? -Michael
Canon DSLR Challenge24-Sep-2006 23:56
Thank you both of you for looking and commenting.
I am sorry to disappoint you Mr. Pops, but all the shadow created by the subject is right here. I did not add or remove any shadow of the shape in this photo, nor is this a composite.
Sharon, I did use photoshop, but mainly to improve on what I captured and to make corrections to the imperfections in the shape I wanted in this photo. I did not add or delete any shadow or shape from this or different photo. -Cat
Canon DSLR Challenge24-Sep-2006 17:37
Where IS the rest of the shadow? Nice - Pops
elips24-Sep-2006 15:34
Very interesting, Cat! Photoshopped, I assume, and effectively so. It took me a second look to realize that the shadow didn't go all the way round. And I love the way the grid fades off into the image. Nicely done! ~Sharon