old country fence

[schrackman]

Since I was somewhat brutally honest with Minnesota scroller on his fence post I thought I would throw up one of my own for some brutally honest critique.

Now mind you, I did the exact opposite of what I told him not to do...I shot in the midday sun. However, I think with the proper aperture/shutter combination and subject matter one can actually make a midday shot work for him. I also tend to think film is a bit more tolerant than digital where it concerns bright sunlight, at least with the digital Rebels that I've used it seems to be true.

This particular photo was taken last week using my Canonet GIII QL-17 and Fuji NPS 160 film. I remember I set my aperture to f/2.8 to zone my focus on one of the fence posts and blur most everything else out. Shutter speed was 1/500th. I would have like to have gone wide open (f/1.7) but, alas, I was already at the Canonet's max shutter speed.

Oh yes, the color negative was scanned using my Epson 3170.

So have at it folks. :-)

[starriderrick]

The narrow DOF really brings the texture of some very old lumber to life.
I like the lean of the fence. To me this is also very cool as it shows nature taking its course.The fence looks long forgotten...That is untill you found it.
Nice work.

Rick

[schrackman]

Thanks, Rick!

You seemed to have interpreted what I wanted to convey with this picture–a fence llong forgotten.

[mn shutterbug]

Ah, revenge. Actually, you did have a little better lighting because it wasn't as directional as the sun on my fence. You must have shot yours more mid afternoon, rather that at noon. It appears a little higher in the sky. I do like the angle and comp. However there is one thing missing that I think could have added to the photo. This is just my opinion, which many others will disagree with of course. Even just 1 bright little flower or weed would have added a splash of color to it. Some of you will say that it would take away from the fence. I think a splash of color would initially draw a person to the photo as a whole. Otherwise, IMO, I think this shot would be just as effective as a B & W.

Anyway, nice fence.

[schrackman]

Thanks MS.

And yes, I threw this photo up just so you can shoot back, hehe.

Actually, I took this photo somewhere between 11:30 am and noon. However, it could just be that I shot from a different direction than you did. Had I been facing the opposite direction I don't think I could have pulled this off. But like I said, I think film makes a difference on a shot like this.

I agree with you about the addition of flowers; however, here in so. Cal there's very few roadside flowers left on account of it heating up for summer. I think this location warrants a return trip in the spring.

Ah, revenge. Actually, you did have a little better lighting because it wasn't as directional as the sun on my fence. You must have shot yours more mid afternoon, rather that at noon. It appears a little higher in the sky. I do like the angle and comp. However there is one thing missing that I think could have added to the photo. This is just my opinion, which many others will disagree with of course. Even just 1 bright little flower or weed would have added a splash of color to it. Some of you will say that it would take away from the fence. I think a splash of color would initially draw a person to the photo as a whole. Otherwise, IMO, I think this shot would be just as effective as a B & W.

Anyway, nice fence.

[Greg McCary]

I like the picture but feel it would have been a little stronger if you have moved slightly more to the right. I think this is good for a mid-day shot. Well done.

[gahspidy]

i think you have a good shot here. I like the narrow dof and the focal point as well. Composition feels right. The tight dof and lack of much sky reduces whatever drawbacks shooting in midday might have.
As for your comment about film vs digital, I would agree that film handles brights better and does not blowout quite as easily. However, I find that I can get around the harsh effects of the midday sun better with digital than film by underexposing, and bringing back shadow detail later when shot in RAW.
Good stuff, Ray