I just posted a new photo at the web site address below (Click "Tulips"). Comments appreciated. Thanks, Ollie

http://www.web-graphics.com/steinerphoto

-- Ollie Steiner (violindevil@yahoo.com), April 12, 2002

Answers

i know it reflects a depraved level of laziness, but i never bother to look at photos that aren't directly linked to the site (or aren't posted directly). i think poseters are doing themselves a disservice by not learning how to make links. it's so easy.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), April 12, 2002.

Roger - Please tell us who do not know how , how. Thanks.

-- Max Wall (mtwall@earthlink.net), April 12, 2002.

Please click here for the admin thread on how to make your link clickable.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), April 12, 2002.

Ollie,

I like your website and pictures. The lighting inside the tulip is interesting. I don't know enough to make salient criticism about photography, but I do like your photo's very much.

BTW. Copy/paste/go just isn't that hard to do. Sorry this thread deteriorated from it's original intent to a "how to make clickable" rant.

I encourage site reviewers to look at Ollie's stuff. You will find it interesting...

-- David Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), April 12, 2002.

Ollie, if I may?

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

Ollie's site

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

Olie,

I think there are better pictures on your site than the tulip one. I agree with the previous poster that the lighting is interesting, but I see several problems:

- the framing: the little one in the backgroung only adds distraction and the main one leaning to the left, it would have been better placed on the right, killing 2 brids with one stone :)

- I see on your site that you do colour as well. I really think this one, once framed to get it simpler, would have benefited from colour, with 3 well defined colours: black backgroung, the deep green and whatever bright colour the flower is.

- Focus: the focus is on the leave on the left, whereas it should be on the flower itself. That would give us the texture of the petals and hook our eyes on the most interesting aspect of the picture. Only an opinion :)

-- Stephane Bosman (stephane_bosman@yahoo.co.uk), April 12, 2002.

Ollie:

I like the bridge. I would like it much more if the foreground were not out of focus and, to me, distracting.

The magic of Large Format is that one can tilt the front to get all that in focus. A big price to pay,but great results.

Cheers

-- richard ilomaki (richard.ilomaki@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

Ollie, my impression was good and bad. I was a little distracted by the various stems in the photograph, but I my attention was caught by the neat lighting around the tulip head.

I think the shot would've looked better in colour as our attention may have been more direct to the central point of focus- the tulip head (if it was a bright red and the stems were green). In B&W, if the central foucs point is not obvious enough, the viewer gets a little lost and the impression level drops.

I am no expert in still life photography, but I think it is imperative to watch everything in the photograph, as the viewer will most likely know that still life photography is almost totally controllable. You can control the elements, and mistakes are more costly, unlike reportage photography, where many elements are uncontrollable.

I also think you have some great shots on your site, and maybe this is a new area to you. Still life photography scares the hell out of me, because as much as I am not exactly interested in photographying still life, I think I am also too scared for the reason I gave above- I like control but too much is a real test, and one I am not up to yet.

Good try Ollie. Definately better than what I could've done.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

Many thanks to all for taking the time to look and to comment on the photo. Thanks also to those who told me about improving my "clickability". Kristian, you raised an interesting point about the various levels of control available to the photographer in various forms. In photographing these tulips, the possibilities for control of the final outcome seemed to lie somewhere between street photography (on one end of the spectrum) and still life photography (on the other). Had I purchased a potted tulip plant and brought it home, I would have available all the possibilities of still life photography. - I could place a background, arrange the angle and distance of studio lights, and I could photograph the single tulip with empty space around it. What I encountered outdoors neccesitated that I work with the given lighting and the given crowded assortment of leaves, dirt, tulips and surroundings that was there. In my SLR days I made many flower pictures by taking a color shot in which the flower head fills most of the frame. (Been there, done that.) Here I'm trying for a different photo altogether. I'm wanting to explore the mood and delicacy of the lighting such that color, with its vivid impact, would be a distraction. Without doubt, a color shot can make a very effective way to view such a colorful subject. But it's not the only view.

-- Ollie Steiner (violindevil@yahoo.com), April 12, 2002.

Thanks for sharing your site, Ollie.

I, for one, do like the tulip the way it is. I like to do this kind of photos too and feel that your photo brings back the actual experience in the garden, which IMHO means more than just picturing the tulipe.

The same is true about the bridge photo. No doubt Richard is true: other tools would render a much deeper DOF. But I can imagine myself ready to go through the bridge and have no doubts that I would see right what your image shows. A real success I seldom get to.

In general, I liked your site. The violinist is a little overexposed perhaps ... though maybe not so on paper. But I liked your photos of nature better than the ones of people which I like somewhat more spontaneous even if graphical perfection suffers.

Thanks for the tulipe, Ollie. Keep posting, please.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), April 12, 2002.