Little kid in airport

[roygoh]

Originally posted by Jed
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?

Well, it has been raining all night, as usual. We had about 6 inches of snow last Thursday night, the second time this winter. The first time was in Jan.

Represent me against myself? So you earn a EOS1D from Shadus and a Nikon Dxx from me? You will be the only one left in this word who is happy!

:bsmilie:

 

[Jed]

No, no no. Me represent you to defend you lah...

Right, about this weather thing. Somehow or the other we've had a lot more snow than you! But I'm sure you get more sun than us. I usually see mine about once a fortnight...

 

[roygoh]

So you will represent Shadus to sue me (for a EOS1D) and represent me at the same time to defend me (for a Nikon Dxx).

If you are a Canon user, Shadus will sure win, if you are a Nikon user, then I will win.

Now, which camera did you say you are using ....

 

[roygoh]

It has not been snowing for the past 4 or 5 years as I've heard, until last year when we got about 6 inches in Jan. So this year is considered unusual, actually, for us to have snow twice in a winter.

That does not mean we have a lot of sun shine, though. It rains about 60% of the time here in Seattle. It can be depressing some times!

 

[roygoh]

OK, before Jed and I take over this thread, I did notice the repetitive pattern on the glass, now that Shadus has mentioned that he actually used a polarizer. That is the result of the residual stress in the glass, I believe, which polarises the reflected light unevenly. This will not be visible if the picture is taken without a polarizer.

Shadus, are the 3 sets of reflections you've mentioned distributed on the left, centre and right portions of the frame? I guess the angle of polarization is also dependent on the angle of reflection. Thats why you were unable to remove all the reflections with a single polarizer.

 

[Shadus]

The 'ugliest' one is due to lights from the shops behind (to the left) of this picture. You can see them off the glass. Its filtered off here.

The other one, you can see pretty clearly in this pic.

One more is from the floor. It's partly filtered off here. Otherwise, you can see the floor pretty clearly in the reflections.

Any suggestions for this situation?

 

[ninelives]

Originally posted by roygoh


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:

well, not everyone like it, according to my poll.
check here:

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2097

14 out of 20 don't like someone to edit their photo.

 

[roygoh]

I guess I just violated my own suggestion that one should seek permission before modifying someone else's photo.

Next time don't dare already....

 

[Jed]

Serious post, sorry to know bring up that modifying thing, wasn't trying to make you feel bad or anything. I just think people should be more aware about copyright in general (I've heard some really stupid misconceptions).

It is illegal to modify someone's work without first obtaining their permission. That's what it is under the law. But in reality, among friends and community members I cannot see a problem. And of course if say someone decided to sue you they'd be hard pressed to claim damages because barring extraordinary circumstances there is no damage done.

Put it another way, I'm sure everyone has no doubt that to take a software program, for example a Microsoft one, and modifying it is considered copyright infringment. This is just an example of it being taken down to a more everyday level.

 

[Jed]

Oh and BTW, this is probably going to stir up a hornet's nest, but there are a few defences to copyright infringement, one of which is quoting for review or analysis. There are other conditions to satisfy, but this could possibly apply in this situation.

 

[roygoh]

Jed,

I am sure we can get very useful information from you on this matter if we continue this discussion. I would really like to learn from you.

However, I suggest we continue this discussion in ninelives thread below:

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2097

so that it will be more appropriate and also address a wider audience. What do you say?

 

[zapp!]

I was just wondering, if the contrast of massiveness and tallness would have been even more greatly emphasized if the shot was taken in a portrait format instead of landscape...

 

[Linkster]

Originally posted by roygoh
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

can anyone else view this pic?

 

[roygoh]

Originally posted by Linkster
can anyone else view this pic?

This post was so old, the album has already expired on my ClubPhoto account. SInce I am not a paying member there, the album was deleted.

I am amazed that you actually dig out such a old thread. If I remember correctly, I suggested a different framing, and demonstrated my idea by greying out the area on the original picture that I thought I would have cropped.

Then Jed spoiled the fun by bringing up the copyright thingy.:devil:

I may still have the picture on my other PC. If I find it I will post it again tomorrow.

- Roy

 

[Linkster]

Originally posted by roygoh
This post was so old, the album has already expired on my ClubPhoto account. SInce I am not a paying member there, the album was deleted.

I am amazed that you actually dig out such a old thread. If I remember correctly, I suggested a different framing, and demonstrated my idea by greying out the area on the original picture that I thought I would have cropped.

Then Jed spoiled the fun by bringing up the copyright thingy.:devil:

I may still have the picture on my other PC. If I find it I will post it again tomorrow.

- Roy

haha.. thanks..

how about more photos of keven?

 

[roygoh]

Originally posted by Linkster
haha.. thanks..

how about more photos of keven?

I could not find the modified picture anymore.

What I did was I suggested changing the framing into portrait mode by cropping off the first metal pillar from the right and the white pacth of concrete (?) pillar on the far left. Hope this will give you a better idea.

As for Keven's pictures, more will be coming soon....

 

[SniperD]

Originally posted by Tweek
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.

The composition is fine for me. A natural lead to focus to the little boy right there and then..

Yo Weekai, come back from JST liao ahh??? Heehee :thumbsup: