I like the idea of this image, and think it works well - the exaggerated perspective is great. However, I don't personally think it's much more of a close-up view than one normally has when sitting on the beach. I wonder what would have happened if you'd got the camera really close down to those pebbles? Perhaps the overall composition would have been harder to make work, but perhaps would have fulfilled the brief better.

I had a student once who was obsessed with putting her camera on the floor and taking photos...I thought they were brilliant!

I've done similar stuff with pinholes...pretty interesting effect (f195) as you can imagine.

Anyway - I picked this image in part as it was one of 3 black and whites... and because I just found something about it - I don't think any other submission covered such a distance range.

Yeah, I would really like to experiment with pinhole photography. Would be great for shots like this.

I once read about a guy who made his own lens with parts from TV camera lenses, that enabled him to do these amazing close ups with the background nearly in focus as well.

Pinhole depth of field can be a few mm from the pinhole through to infinity....

You need a good circular pinhole though, but you can get them made - laser into aluminimum.

Someone else I know had a dustbin that he made into a pinhole...he'd shoot on 20x24" positive paper...was really strange given the curve of the paper...quite fun.

I love tiny minute apertures...I tend to shoot f64 or f90 if it's available.

I heard of someone who used a wheely bin to give a flat paper area. He took loads of photos of bristol using it. I think he used normal paper though, so that gave a negative print.

http://www.pinholephotography.org/ ah, that's the guy I was thinking of. Aren't the toilet roll ones weird. Think the guy's a bit of a nutcase!!

>Dave

Yeah I've met Justin... did a workshop with him. Then he gave a lecture.

His mouth cam is all about having a bit of fun.

Haha, yeah, they're crazy - Made me smile :)

I like the composition and the image in general (but agree with Dave that as far as fulfilling the brief it's 'on the fringe'). Generally speaking I don't really like foregrounds being out of focus. I realise that it is such a large distance from the foreground to infinity but by focussing on the closest point, checking the distance and then setting the scale on the lens to ensure that the depth of field covers all of the distance from foreground to infinity (which is always easier to achieve on a wide angle lens which this is obviously taken with)I feel it could have added to the shot. You may have needed a tripod though if the shutter speed was too slow to handhold.
However, when faced with the shot as it is I would have darkened the foreground both to disguise the lack of sharp focus and because I think it would have added to the shot. Obviously it's only my preference and everyone else might hate it. I have emailed my version to Mike (via the editor) in the hope he can add it here. I did darken the sky as well but as I was working with a small image the pixels are showing but working with the original ful-size image I think this could have been avoided.

One way of gettin an overall sharp image is of course to take two shots, focussed near and far respectively, and merge them in PhotoShop or similar. Or use a program like the excellent Helicon Focus to merge the focussed areas automatically. The purists wouldn't like it of course...

Although I didn't think this fitted the theme, I liked it because it reminded me how 'easy' it is to get a dramatic shot just by taking it from ground level. Taken from head height it would probably have been no better than the snapshots cluttering up my own hard disk!

I did email my version to the editor but as it hasn't been posted I am trying to post it here myself:

I liked the idea of this image but the out of focus pebbles in the front and the empty bland sky spoilt it for me. Also I thought the bench seats were a little too far away. I don't mean to sound negative. I think your idea has loads of potential. :)

I think Jaqui does have a good point, and the overall effect is better with the foreground darkened.....the out of focus pebbles in the foreground were too prominent, would have been a lot better darker and in focus....

I'm with Annabelle on this - the fact that the foremost pebbles are out of focus acts as a kind of 'barrier' to the rest of the image. I feel like my eyes are having to 'jump' to the middle of the image, and that the lower part is being ignored. It may sound weird, but I really *want* those nearest pebbles to be in focus.

With those in focus, and depth of field gradually disappearing, the image would be a lot easier on the eyes IMO.

But it's all about opinion, and the majority of people may love it as it is.

Aside from the foreground pebbles I like it. Perhaps cropping out the OOF pebbles in the foreground is an idea?

Although a burnt out sky is usually a no-no, it works in this photo, and adds to the overall appeal.

last chance bump

Well I guess what is really needed is for the Focus to be on what ever is the main point in the picture, was that the seat, as if it was it doesn't show, the seat doesn't "for me' have any impact, it is rather less prominent than the pebbles, they get the lion's share of the scene...so as it is they deserve to be in sharp focus, and there does need to be a gradation of light and dark, to make any impact at all...Oh for a ray of sunlight to light up the seat, and draw your eyes into the picture !