Points of Interest

Generally, when I compose a photo, I decide where I want the viewer's eye to go, and then I try to minimize all other distractions so that their eyes stay where I want them to. Usually, where I want their eyes to go is my point of interest - a person's face, an intersection, a flower, whatever is the subject of the photo.

In this case, there's nothing like that. I was just drawn to the play of light and shadow on this patch of clover.

So what do you think - is it too busy? Not interesting enough? Have you taken a similar photo, where there was no discernible subject?

Endless Sky

Landscape

It's been noted by quite a few commenters that I've been using slightly longer lenses of late (I am really truly smitten with the 85mm and the 50mm, possibly to an unhealthy degree), and posting more detail shots and less scenics. All of this is definitely true. I plead guilty. I think it comes from spending so much time in the city - there are only so many cityscapes, and I get tired of seeing the same streets and houses day after day. Detail shots always feel a little fresher to me, somehow. I can find things that I never noticed before.

But anyway, here's a landscape-y photo for y'all that I kind of liked the light on. It's true, I focused close to the camera and so the background's a bit out of focus (even though this was f/16 - aperture doesn't guarantee sharpness). I knew this was happening in camera, and I have a few shots where everything's in focus, but I like this one better for some reason. Anyway.

This shot happened as Evan and I were driving down the highway and the light got really pretty all of a sudden. I begged and pleaded with him to stop, so we took a random exit off and found this field and trees and mountains, all just waiting to be photographed.

So, there's your wide-angle shot for the week. Enjoy!

Plus, a very patriotic cake.

And an interesting monograph on the power structure of the United States.

Attempting to create a new habit or change something in your life? Have you completed Step One?

10 Things I Have Learned by Milton Glaser. Really good points here.

Also, echolocation in humans? Maybe not as implausible as you might think. This is a stunning story. Easily the most inspiring thing I've read in quite a while.

On another note, ever wondered if you might be slightly autistic? You can take the test. I scored a 10 (definitely not autistic, 16 is average - I wasn't worried, whatever I am it's not autistic).

Also, if you're in SF this week, you might want to visit Adobe's pop-up store. Lots of great free events going down there, seems like.

A Rose By Any Other Name

 . . . would smell as sweet.

The Layers of a Photograph

Apparently, if you photograph rain with a high enough shutter speed, it can look like snow. Cool!

What do you need to make a good photograph? Honestly, I think this is one of the hardest questions of all time. In their most basic form, photographs have three main elements:

1. Subject
2. Light
3. Composition

Often, if you have a really kick-ass subject, people will like your photographs. Go travel somewhere cool and everyone loves your shots. Use the same technique at home, and you might not get the same adulation.

Lighting, on the other hand, is my personal favorite, and many of my favorite photos would be nothing without the light in them. Cool light can make a photograph, and some photos are really only pictures of the light - the subject is almost nothing.

Composition, while arguably the most important of the three, is also the hardest to quantify and also the most difficult to truly master. Real control of composition can take a lifetime.

The photo above, for example? I'd say it definitely has cool light, passable composition and a fairly average subject. That still makes it a shot I'd post on the blog (clearly) but probably not one I'd put in my portfolio.

What about you? What other layers are there in a photograph? I can think of a few more that are quite important. Maybe we'll talk about those another day.

Play

Photos Evan and I took of each other on a walk in Tahoe - thereby incorporating three things I count as play. Also, please note that Evan was unable to move the grass so that it wasn't in front of his face. I take no responsibility for that. 

Inspired partly by the Happiness Project, and partly by the Shu Box, here are a few things that would qualify as play for me now. I feel like it's a really important moment when you finally realize and accept that it's ok if you don't enjoy exactly the same things as everyone else. And sometimes it's hard to understand why not everyone loves what you love to do.

Play, for me, is:
-taking photographs (duh!)
-processing photos (not as much, but still fun)
-blogging
-going for a walk
-reading anything: a novel, the cereal box, a magazine left on the kitchen table, blog posts, the like . . .
-thinking about language
-board games that are language related: Boggle, Scrabble, Bananagrams, etc.
-knitting (I haven't for a few years now, but if I found myself with more hours in the day I still would)
-drinking coffee, especially with friends
-travel - that's a big one
-meeting cool new people
-having philosophical discussions
-singing in a chorus
-cooking a good dinner with a companion

Not play for me: team sports, competition, performing solo, computer programming, video/computer games, sudoku (but I do like crossword puzzles), cleaning (here, at least, I'm not alone)

So what about you? What do you consider play and not play? I'd be interested to hear.