Coffee Grinder

[geotography]

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/g.rubaloff/Geotography/photo#5159913375733004722"><img src="http://lh6.google.com/g.rubaloff/R5ux4HhaObI/AAAAAAAABfU/iSlqN55Tpkc/s400/IMGP2875.jpg" /></a>

Thank you for critiquing this photograph. My questions are:

1. Glow from light source in top left: Is this a distraction or can it become a secondary appeal in the frame?

2. Focus: I believe I dialed it in manually the best that I could. Is it clear by your eyes?

3. Bluish light effect: I stumbled across shooting an object in flourescent light with a tungsten setting. I liked it and replicated here in this shot. I'm am sure it has been done. Guess I am asking how others view this effect.

4. Do the few of my cat's hairs bother you as much as it does me? I should be more attentive to my still shot setup.

5. Is the overexposed base of the grinder of left side an unacceptable practice in photos? Does it detract in your minds?

Exif:
50mm
ISO 160
f/8
Shutter spd: 20"

[Murtasma]

1. I really like it I would even like to see some more texture of the background revelaed with that light source. Also have you considered putting the light source that revealed the texture above the grinder? I really like the texture I think it def adds something to the image with the cool blue tones.

2. I think the focus is just right I don't see a problem with it.

3. I like it but it would be nice to see what it would look like with the correct light balance or how about a brownish hue since it' sa coffee maker to represent the beans.

4. They don't really bother me but next time I certianly would make sure there are none.

5. I think the overexposed parts in this image work it reduces the flatness that may be felt if nothing was overexposed.

All in all I think it's a really great shot nice tones creative lighting Good WORK!

[geotography]

Murtasma,

Thanks for taking a look and for your encouraging comments. Here is a another shot with a white balance that matches actual lighting source; just for comparison:

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/g.rubaloff/Geotography/photo#5159914874676591058"><img src="http://lh3.google.com/g.rubaloff/R5uzPXhaOdI/AAAAAAAABfk/ZeBYofvGtvo/s400/IMGP2876.jpg" /></a>

I personally find the first image to be a bit more dramatic.

[Sandie]

. It is very much a secondary appeal!

2. I think the focus is great.

3. I really like the blue light! Especially after looking at the 'properly' balanced one. The blue adds to the feel of the image.

4. Clone them out this time and try to brush them away before the shot next time.

5. I am not sure, I would call it a 'hot spot', and my eye did go there first. I might try and tone it down just a little to make sure there is some detail (even if it is just a little) on the base on the left side.

Great shot and wonderful post!

[xxpinballxx]

both are nice but the blue version is my personal favorite of the two.
I think the blown out areas on the grinder are fine with this shot since it also shows the light source in the upper left.
I find the focus fine in my eyes. The handle is the only spot that my eyes see as off but a very tiny bit.
I would zoom in and clean up a little here and there and thats about it....

[jiminyClickit]

geotography,

Composiition: have you considered landscape, giving more room right and bottom? Still show wall texture, just less of it. The subject is more horizontal, tight crop in portrait crowds it.

[geotography]

jiminyClickit,

No, I had not. I think I will try that the next time I set this up; Unfortunately I limited my pedestal on this particular shoot. One thing I thought I should do was to position the handle on the left side so that people would, in their minds, lead, or, in this case, wind their way to the primary subject. I did have one landscape image from this group (below) with a different angle; however it does not address all of your suggestions.

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/g.rubaloff/Geotography/photo#5160238788225153634"><img src="http://lh5.google.com/g.rubaloff/R5zZ1nhaOmI/AAAAAAAABn4/s014vYQ7e1M/s400/landscape%202873.jpg" /></a>

Also, for fun and laughs maybe, this image is a drawing of the object that I did when I was a boy:
<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/g.rubaloff/Geotography/photo#5159461102791833954"><img src="http://lh6.google.com/g.rubaloff/R5oWiXhaOWI/AAAAAAAABa4/zlgEl5qYC7I/s400/Coffee-Grinder-Pastel-By-Dad.jpg" /></a>

Thanks for your review and comments!

[jiminyClickit]

geotography,

You recreated history! That's a revealing glimpse into your art career, and shows you get the compositional theory of "lead-in." Would you get cramps if I tried an edit? It's that bottom crop that distracts me. I can live with it the way it is; another concept just offers more information for all members viewing Critique.

[geotography]

jiminyClickit,

Absolutely no cramps here; please do. It will provide a learning opportunity.

Thanks,

[peeperita]

good presentation for your image.....


i like both the subject and the choice of background.....


the glow in the upper left of the frame is not distracting....it highlights the texture of the wall well

the focus is good on everything but the knob on the handle crank thing.....i believe it was a tad closer to the lens than everything else....if that's true, next time try to remember to focus on the thing nearest your camera....depth of field seems to move back from that point.....

i prefer the warm toned image the best.....for me it suits your subject and your subject is all about coffee.....

cat hair is a bad thing.....i can't tell you how many staged shots i had to go back and recreate because of a seemingly insignificant detail such as hair or a fingerprint.....

i'll be in the minority on this one.....but, yes, those blown areas on the grinder bother me.....a fill light placed forward and to the right of your subject would have helped to more evenly distribute light and keep your contrast within a workable range....

thanks for sharing.....and thanks for sharing it well....

[geotography]

peeperita,

Thanks for taking time to review this thread. Your suggestions are very helpful and will be included in my study notes.

Best,

[jiminyClickit]

geotography,

Just when you thought it was over, along comes another late arrival. I liked the first one, really liked the original, and then wanted to offer a pictorial version of the landscape suggestion. As always, for an alternative view, to open the possibilities to compositional choices.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/47146451@N00/2226763732/" title="CoffeG2 by jiminyClickit, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2047/2226763732_804cd894fe.jpg" width="500" height="365" alt="CoffeG2" /></a>

[ELAY]

I'm coming late to the party.

I just wanted to chime in on the hotspot. I think that if it doesn't flatten out the rest of the photo too much, you should strive to avoid big areas of overexposure. For me though, the issue isn't the overexposed area per se, but the way it blends into the bottom of the backdrop. I think this shot would be improved if the surface on which you placed the coffee grinder were contrasted with the grinder.

EL

[RussHeath]

Great shot, and you have lots of info, but one more opinion can't hurt, right?

1. Glow from light source in top left: Is this a distraction or can it become a secondary appeal in the frame?

Glow definitely adds appeal for me, as it gives a direct visual clue to the direction of the light source.

2. Focus: I believe I dialed it in manually the best that I could. Is it clear by your eyes?

Yes, but I agree with Peeper that the knob is just a little soft.

3. Bluish light effect: I stumbled across shooting an object in flourescent light with a tungsten setting. I liked it and replicated here in this shot. I'm am sure it has been done. Guess I am asking how others view this effect.

Nice effect, but I agree with others that a warmer tone is more "appropriate" for a coffee grinder.

4. Do the few of my cat's hairs bother you as much as it does me? I should be more attentive to my still shot setup.

Yes, they do bother me, but they don't detract appreciably from an otherwise meticulous shot. I have a cat and a dog and fight with the same thing every time I shoot in the house. Thank goodness for photoshop! :)

5. Is the overexposed base of the grinder of left side an unacceptable practice in photos? Does it detract in your minds?

As Elay said, this is to be avoided if possible. I think true specular highlights off of highly reflective surfaces like glass or metal are expected to look pure white in some settings. However, I don't think of old wood as being one of these textures where it is expected, so it detracts from the texture. As Peeper said, a reflector to camera right would have brought up the exposure on the shadow side without forcing you to blow the highlights on the left of the image.

Thanks for the very specific questions and for sharing your image with us. I also liked the addition of your childhood drawing. :o

[RussHeath]

geotography,

Just when you thought it was over, along comes another late arrival. I liked the first one, really liked the original, and then wanted to offer a pictorial version of the landscape suggestion. As always, for an alternative view, to open the possibilities to compositional choices.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2047/2226763732_804cd894fe.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/47146451@N00/2226763732/)


Great edit, Jiminy! It simplifies and improves the composition without drastic alterations.

[jiminyClickit]

(Like you read my thoughts: geotography brought all the parts, i just moved them around a little.)

[geotography]

I would have got to class sooner; I went on a camera adventure and then needed to participate in a music rehersal.

I think the coast is clear now for me to thank all of you for your attention and expertise. I will be carefully studying each critique comment that you offered.

JiminyClicket: I like your edited version and it is now my favorite of the group. Someday, I really must learn how to accomplish such useful edits. For now, I am going to try for the best composition at the camera.

jC: please confirm that the method you used involved a cloning technique. I am studying my post processing options beyond Faststone and Picasa2; and I will eventually want to take the next logical step. Do you have any suggestions in that area?

With thanks,

[jiminyClickit]

geotography,

You're welcome, and for explanation, these edits are an indication of what a different camera shot might accomplish. If these were PP sections, I'd give another answer and use my own photo.

You had the textures and color, so I saved those. Cutting out the grinder, placing on a separate layer, gave me the option of cloning it out of the photo. Bottom shelf is added on, after squishing (resizing upwards) original background. Then reapplying grinder, moving it around, resizing it, adding shadow and glow behind it, gave this look.