JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).
By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you have read your options regarding cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.
You can change in every moment your cookies preferences from the page Cookie Preferences, that can be reached from every page of the website with the link that you find at the bottom of the page; you can also set your preferences directly here
Do you have questions or curiosities about this image? Do you want to ask something to the author, give him suggestions for improvement, or congratulate for a photo that you really like?
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 242000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
sent on April 18, 2013 (20:06) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
The questions arise spontaneously ... : -Why did you decide to cut cleanly through the two people in the foreground? -Because you have opted for generating a very low iso moved of 2 people? -Because you have not lowered the point of recovery? I see the basic uncertainty of pre-visualization .. of intent :-/. Let me explain: It seems that you thought a recovery of Urban Landscape willy-nilly, but the human elements were in the foreground and you could not exclude them. With this composition, you sacrificed a choice from street-photography getting a scene that is borderline for the urban landscape. Lower the point of recovery instead could not slice through the two people and give depth / three-dimensional playing with the line of the street lamps optimizing and enhancing the location uno shooting from Sreet Photography. (Imho) hello and good light, laurel La domande nascono spontanee... : -perchè hai deciso di tagliare di netto le due persone in primo piano? -perchè hai optato per iso bassissimi generando un mosso delle 2 persone? -perchè non hai abbassato il punto di ripresa? Di base vedo un'incertezza di pre-visualizzazione .. di intenti . Mi spiego meglio: Sembra che tu pensassi ad una ripresa di Paesaggio Urbano ma volente o nolente gli elementi umani erano in primo piano e non potevi escluderli. Con questa composizione hai sacrificato una scelta da street-photography ottenendo una scena che è borderline anche per paesaggio urbano. Abbassano il punto di ripresa potevi invece non tagliare di netto le due persone e dare profondità/tridimensionalità giocando con la linea dei lampioni e valorizzando la location ottimizzando uno scatto da Sreet Photography . (imho) ciao e buona luce, lauro
sent on April 19, 2013 (8:54) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Lauro great, now I try to answer ...
I was photographing the arch of peace and I put on the 70-300 because I wanted to take the intersection at the bottom and the passage of trams leaving an all time high and with the best possible definition [URL =] www.juzaphoto. com/shared_files/uploads/427872.jpg waiting for the tram but then I did a couple of test shots and I saw the two boys on the fly and I tried ... actually I could also use a different diaphragm to disconnect more .. but stupidly I have not changed the opening ... I can tell you that it is absolutely true that there was uncertainty in the pre-visualization, because it just was not there:-D
What about the other? (Apart from that is crooked, I saw just now): fconfuso:
thanks for the ride, Lorenz grandissimo Lauro, ora provo a rispondere...
stavo fotografando l'arco della pace e ho messo su il 70-300 perché volevo riprendere l'incrocio in fondo e il passaggio dei tram lasciando un tempo alto e con la definizione migliore possibile www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/uploads/427872.jpg ma poi aspettando il tram ho fatto un paio di foto di prova e ho visto i due ragazzi e al volo ho provato... effettivamente avrei potuto usare anche un diaframma differente per staccarli di più.. ma stupidamente non ho modificato l'apertura... ti posso dire che non è vero che c'era assolutamente incertezza nella pre-visualizzazione, perché proprio non c'era
Dell'altra che mi dici? (a parte che è storta, l'ho visto solo ora)
![[retina]](shared_files/layout/retina_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
11.1 MEGAPIXEL
Resize to fit window
. 
