View Full Version : Critique #81 Open Theme
ClaremontPhoto
12-01-2007, 20:47
Welcome to this critique thread. Please read the purpose statement and the guidelines/ground rules regarding participation.
Purpose
The primary purpose of this thread is to provide a forum where photographers can give and receive constructive criticism on one another's photographs. By setting up some basic guidelines we hope that this thread will provide a forum where the give and take of honest constructive criticism can help us become better photographers.
Guidelines/Ground Rules
The thread has very specific rules regarding participation. The one basic rule is that you cannot provide criticism on an image or comment in a critique thread unless you also have an image posted. To post an image to this thread you must be a participant. Participation in this thread is limited. Here are the guidelines and ground rules for participation:
• Participation in this thread is limited to 5 photographers
• Participants join the thread by posting their intention. You can simply reply with your intent to join by posting something like: "I'm joining," "I'm in," or just state your name
• Joining is on a "first come, first served" basis. The first 5 to reply become the participants.
• Please, only join this thread if you are able post an image within 24 hours of joining.
• Once the thread has 5 participants, no other photographers can join or participate in the thread
• Once the thread is full of participants all photographers will upload their image(s)
• Please abide by any thematic requirement (e.g., landscape, portrait, etc.)
• The number of photos for each participant is limited to one
• Photographers attach photos as thumbnails (no inline images or links)
• Photos should be standard screen resolution (72~90) and the longest side of the image approximately 10 inches in length.
• Photographers post their images supplying titles (if any) and other pertinent information (the amount of information should be minimal)
• Photographers can only comment on their own images and reply to comments only when everyone else in the thread has posted their comments on the image
• Every participant must comment on every photo (except their own—initially)
• Every participant must make at least two comments, one positive comment, and one constructive criticism.
• Once every photographer has commented then a free flowing discussion begins. It is at this point that every photographer can comment on their own work and reply to comments, ask questions, etc.
• The participants decide when the thread closes.
So, five people need to sign up.
john neal
12-01-2007, 23:30
Jon,
I always seem to miss these, and I'm worried about what to post, but I'm in!
I'm in!
(too short a post)
ClaremontPhoto
12-02-2007, 01:09
Two in already.
We need three more...
ClaremontPhoto
12-02-2007, 09:33
We need three more victims, sorry three more participants.
Okay, count me in! :-)
--
Monz
ClaremontPhoto
12-02-2007, 10:14
Only two more places available...
Count me in. I haven't done this for some time!
Bump !
Post your pictures, guys, I counted 5 :)
Jon, hope you don't mind my post ...
Roland.
Thanks for the bump, Roland. I will load up my photo as soon as feasible.
ClaremontPhoto
12-03-2007, 10:01
Anybody want to be a guest - no upload but yes comments?
I'd like to be a guest if possible.
john neal
12-03-2007, 10:38
OK, Jon,
Here's mine - I hope it shows up on OK your monitor!
Leica M3, Canon 50mm f1.4, Ilford Delta 400.
[edit: got the body wrong!]
ClaremontPhoto
12-03-2007, 11:01
jbf is guest.
john neal
12-03-2007, 11:35
Hi Monz,
Sorry - I don't see an image, or a link (is it me?)
Hi John,
I'm having trouble with uploading image; I've just deleted my original post and will try again.
--
Monz
Jamming
Leica M6, Zeiss Ikon 35mm Biogon, Fuji Acros ISO 100
Krakow, Poland - May 2007
M6, 40mm Summicron-C, APX100
Unfortunately I won't be able to present any critique until Wednesday morning (GMT) due to travel and work. I will do my best then!
M6; 24mm; T-Max 400 @ 800
David
http://www.formal.ie/images/122-0081.jpg
Camera and lens: Contax IIIa with Sonnar 5cm/2.0.
Film: Agfapan 400
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/16680026.jpg
John Neal: Nice composition. Lovely capture of the lighting. I might try to pull a little more detail back out of the highlights, and try to keep the shadows/midtones where they are, but overall I think it's a great study on natural light.
Monz: I love your portraits. This is no exception. The composition and timing of this shot is beautifully done. The expression and gesture of the boy as he looks intently into the camera lens as he plays the harmonica is breathtaking. The tonality and depth of field of the image make it and eye grabber instantly. I love how 'high key' this shot it. It makes the boy stand out so much. Yet at the same time your eye moves from the boy to the two children in the background also playing musical instruments. It makes for a very powerful image.
This is an image I would have loved to have hanging on my wall. :)
The only thing I might have tried was to see if i could pull the highlights down just a tad on the figures in the background. But at the same time this may not be something that you want to do as it may draw your attention away from the boy more. In any case this is a beautifully capture and intimate capture of these three children. Wonderful shot! :D
EmilGill: Very nice framing and capture. The thing about your capture is that since the only foreign language I can somewhat understand is Spanish, so the sign on the wall definately captures my attention. I can't help but want to know what it means. So in this case it definately captures my attention. The figure is a nice added touch as well, but I keep feeling like I want to see something more about the figure or how the person relates more toward the background. Regardless, it's an interesting and well composed shot.
Formal: A stunning street portrait. The central girl instantly captures my attention. I find it incredibly arresting how all other figures are all looking in the direction of (presumably) the receiver of their protest. The young woman's gaze is full of emotion. I feel the power and strength from within and her acknowledgement of you (the photographer) makes this image all the more powerful. A beautifully captured and presented portrait. Another shot I would love to have on my wall.
Raid: When I saw this image i couldnt help but feel a little bit humored. For some reason the young ladies sunglasses and hairstyle remind me of the greek beauties from the 50s and 60s. Why, I am not sure. Perhaps it is the mix of the tonality as well as the sunglasses but something strikes me as quite retro about the photo.
I keep wanting to see her eyes though. I feel like the sunglasses (while they do give a great reflection and tonality in them) I really feel like her eyes would make it more powerful. In any case a very nice portrait.
All in all some beautifully done photos here guys. Some really well seen and captured photos.
Well done!
John: It is not easy to strike just the right balance between overexposing the view outside the building and underexposing the indoor part of the image. You managed to do a good job in this aspect. The positioning of the entrance slightly off center is good. There is a gradiation of dark grea to brilliant white. I like the shot.
Monz: The image is superb. I love the expressions on the faces of each of the three children. The boy, being the center figure, looks great with his lips over the harminica and the contrast between the white and the black part in his eyes and the sunshine hitting his hair and the clothes he is wearing make it all surreal. The girl in the back is absorbed with playing some sort ofkeyboard while the other girl has her eyes close, being taken into a world of musical harmony. I love it.
Emil: I love what appears to be the reflection of the person in the glass. The composition is execllent,letting the person walkinto the scene. This is an excellent capture.
Formal: This is a powerful street photo. The young woman in the front looks at you,and her stare makes this image. Wonderful.
john neal
12-04-2007, 03:55
Monz - I like the simplicity of the shot, and the use of the rule of thirds works very well. There is a good range of tones for a high-key shot, and the slight bokeh between the boy and the children in the background works very well. Exposure is good, and it would have been easy to lose detail in the boy's face, given the backlighting, but you have held that well. I would just like a little more punch in the contrast, but that could be my (work) monitor, or the fact that I like contrast. I do think this shot needs a good border, and you have got the depth of that just about perfectly.
The boy's eyes are what really makes the shot for me - it looks almost as though he has been discovered doing something he should not (obviously not the case, but it is a great capture.
EmilGil - a shot after my own heart. I have a thing about doorways, windows & urban shabby chic. Timing is good, with the guy about to walk past the door - will he go in, or go past? Just enough blur in his foot to show movement, even if he looks completely detached from his surroundings. Good range of tones, but (again it may be my monitor) I don't see a max black anywhere, but I do like the glimpse of the interior of the bar through the door - good offset from centre too. I did just wonder where the point of focus was though - seems to be the taverna sign, but it is all just a little soft (shutter speed, perhaps?)
Best thing for me in the shot are the reflections in the windos - we can see a different world to the one we inhabit, complete with the doppelganger of the guy on the street.
Formal - a great reportage shot, classic structure and with a great focal length for the subject type. Exposure is great - full range of tones and some smack in the face blacks! Interesting composition with all eyes in one direction, except for one pair that have engaged with the observer - very spooky. Difficult shot to crop, and the only minus point for me are the half-faces at either edge of the shot, I might have tried it without them to increase the impact, but that is a small point.
Again, the eyes make the shot - overall it makes me want to know more about what is going one. More please.
Raid - I have to say that I don't think this is up to your normal standard (sorry!). It is a fairly plain record shot of somebody in front of a crowd, possibly at a street market. The range of tones is slightly compressed (monitor again?), and the point of focus seems to be the strap over the girl's shoulder, not her glasses or face. To be honest, I would have asked her to take the glasses off (assuming you know her), this would give us the essential eyes. having said that, the composition is bang on with the main subject just right and good bokeh with the crowd behind.
Please don't take offence, but I know you have produced much better work than this (pictures of your daughter with the Summar, for example).
Sorry if I'm coming across as critical - but I'm trying to be honest :)
John
----
I'm not a big fan of this type of picture, but it has a good composition that leads the viewer's eye through the image to the tree or bush outside the window.
No the negative side, the wires at the top look out of place and on my monitor highlights are blown out. I also think it is a pity that the whitewash of the walls is continued onto the floor, thus blurring the distinction between the walls and ground.
Monz
----
This is a very good environmental portrait. I like the expression on the boy's face and the poses of the two girls. The shallow DOF also works well in separating the girls from the boy.
I don't like the frame; for me it is two thick. Also the plug on the wall is a bit distracting.
EmilGil
-------
A good street shot. I like the detail in the building and the man's reflection in the window.
However, I don't think that the man is sufficiently isolated from the background. His head merges with the flowers and his coat & bag merge with the dark rectangle.
raid
----
A good portrait. I like the way the second woman is walking into the frame and the fact that both are wearing glasses. The shallow depth of field also works very well.
The black object in the lower left hand corner is unfortunate and I think I would have preferred the main subject to have been wearing dark sunglasses.
David
John
-----
I like the textures of the walls and floor and the way the arch forms a frame within a frame. Also, there is a good range of tones (apart from the blown-out area in the distance).
However, my eyes are looking for a focus of attention; maybe something on the shelf on the left or a person standing in the archway may have added to the composition?
EmilGil
--------
Nice street shot, again with a great range of tones. I like the inclusion of the man and his reflection in the window.
There is motion blur in the man's feet - perhaps it would have been better either to freeze him totally with a higher shutter speed or increase the blurring further to really give a sense of motion.
David/Dublin Protest
------------------------
Splendid photograph David. I spent a lot of time looking at it. Technically it is very good in terms of composition and tonal range. I like the fact that only the lady in white has noticed you - her eye contact makes the photo for me. I also like the fact that you have included the big banner with writing which adds context.
I can't really find anything negative to say; maybe position the lady at the front slightly further to the right or have a little more area to the left (thereby making the composition fit the law of thirds better).
Raid
-----
I recently saw a newly-serviced Contax IIIA and 50mm Sonnar 1.5 at a camera fair and passed on it. After seeing your picture, I wished I had bought the kit! It is a nice street portrait. I like the "bokeh", the reflection in the sunglasses and that "old fashioned" look which is difficult to put into words.
I am not sure if the lady with the drink on the left helps or detracts from the composition. If she was any sharper, I would find her distracting.
All in all, a nice collection of photographs. Thanks all for sharing and commenting.
--
Monz
edited: I removed my early rejoinder. Thanks Monz.
I guess, it is now OK to write a rejoindersince everyone has received comments and has commented. .....
Hi Raid,
I think we're still waiting for EmilGil's comments..... hopefully on Wednesday.
--
Monz
bump ....
I hope that we keep the momentum going here. Such delays can kill a thread or interest in it.
Terribly sorry Raid, I'll get to it when I get home from work in an hour or so.
My flight back home was delayed this morning and I've had my fair share of things to do at the office today.
Terribly sorry Raid, I'll get to it when I get home from work in an hour or so.
My flight back home was delayed this morning and I've had my fair share of things to do at the office today.
No problem, Emil. When travel is necessary, hobbies have to wait!
May I be a guest and make some comments?
Alright, so I'm home and have had my coffee, I am now ready to give my comments. I apologize if I repeat something either of you has said before as I haven't read your comments yet (in order not to colour my own impression of your pictures).
John, I like the composition but I can't help to wonder what was most important; the arch doorway or the plant on the outside. The metering and darkroom work is terrific, you have captured the structure in the plaster and stone very well and you've created a nice depth in your image by placing that plant in the opening. I would have wanted a slight burning of the lightest areas of the print to avoid blowing the highlights completely.
Monz: A great family picture; the girl in the back concentrated on her piano, the other girl with her guitar (both nicely out of focus) and the young boy with a glint in his eye, ready to let it loose on his harmonica. The three kids are nicely spaced and the girls give a nice backdrop to the boy. The light metering is very well done, such a bright motive is seldom easy. My only suggestion would be to lower the camera about a foot or so to get more in level with the kids, to avoid the adult (bird) perspective and lose the curtain on the right. Your shot reminds me that I have to try Fuji Acros some day!
David: Nice documentary shot. They seem a bit overcome and unmotivated, as commanded out in the street to protest against something they don't agree with. The happy eyes of the young girl in the middle lifts the picture, that's where my eyes lands after looking at your image. Nice composition and darkroom work. Apart from the 1/4 of a police officer's face in the left upper corner, I think you've done very well in this shot. Maybe a small burning of the sky in the top middle could help focus the viewer on the young girl even more.
Raid, your shot is the most difficult to comment. It's obviously taken at some street fair or similar with a lot of things going on around you and your wife but she's clearly the most important part of your photo. I don't know about the reflections in her sunglasses, it disturbs me somehow that I don't see all of what I expect to see there. I think either more or less reflections would have worked better. What's that little black thing coming in from the lower left corner? I suspect it's your daughter but just seeing a little of her hair is a bit annoying.
Thank you all for you comments, I appreciate them. Now it's time for our guests to cast their votes before we continue our discussion and explain our own pictures. Once again, sorry for my delay in posting my comments.
May I be a guest and make some comments?
Hello mgilvey and welcome. Please feel free to make comments :-)
--
Monz
Great, I'll divulge my words of wisdom when I get home from work tonight. Mind you I don't have much wisdom and it may be hard to find the words ;-)
There has been plenty of discussion about the images presented here. What people like and what they would change. I would like to attempt to take it one step further (I hope). I am going to critique two images that stood out to me because they seem to be speaking the words "What if? Here is where I would like us to discuss what if it was this or what if that so that you can have an enhanced awareness to ask the same or similar questions the next time you put the camera up to your eye.
Ask yourself, what do you do when you compose an image? What are you thinking about? Shape, texture, light and light quality? Design, balance and relationships? How about previsulization? Of course and that is what I want to focus on with the following two image critiques.
The first image belongs to John Neal. Before I start, I should also let it be known that I'm a photo retoucher and I have no bones about moving or removing things that just don't work in a design. Yes, I removed the wiring that was over the doorway. If that is too big of a crime then just tell yourself that I painstakingly went back to this very location, patched the wiring because the owner got sick of looking at it and then went to the trouble to wait for the right light and framed it exactly the same. I understand the need to photograph some things as true as possible and that is all right and fine with me but if I'm looking for something that I want to present as art, I'm not going to wait for the Gods to put every single little element in the right spot and I'm certainly not going to wait for them to tell the wind to blow to remove a piece of trash from the composition. I hope I'm not alienating anyone but I know there are those who would wait for the wind to blow the trash out of the way instead of removing it themselves.
Ok, enough of my rant, lets look at some photos. I've read through everyone's post and the consensus on this image seems to be that some can't tell what the subject is but the textures and lighting are great. I don't know what John's level of experience is so I'm to present some ideas as I would do them. Now in hind-sight what would you have done? What were you thinking when you took the photo? If you printed it in a darkroom, what were you thinking when you printed it, what were you trying to emphasize?
Looking at this image, I would say that you were engulfed by the soft light and the white on white effect it has on the painted wall and likely so! But how to draw the viewers eye to it? Well, you've placed the tree in the background off to the side a bit which certainly helps draw the eye in as mentioned in a previous post but now what, do I look at; the tree or the soft lit area inside? Was this your dilemma? What I'm trying to do here is to get you to think about what you've printed vs what you could have done so that when (not if) these arguments resurface the next time a similar scenario comes up so you can work out several ideas before clicking the shutter. That's not to say you didn't do that when you took this one but since everyone seems to have a few similar thoughts, perhaps we can present those suggestions implemented so you can see how it might look and thus explore the possibilities.
Lets look at this first version I present. Going with the idea that perhaps the tree is competing for attention against the white walls I've brightened up the outside so that the tree is no longer a subject stealer. The eye will always be attracted to the brightest thing in the image first but in this case, note how the archway becomes the subject. How does this help you for when you were looking through the camera? Was this what you were after in the first place? Or were you after the white walls in next space. If this is what you might have wanted, you could have chosen to opened up the lens even further thereby increasing the sense of white on white but having a single subject becasue most of the tree would be blown out.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2152/2090462374_3f6e20675e_o.jpg
Ok, lets look at another version. This one goes the opposite direction. In this scenario the viewer goes through the corridor and outside to the tree but now the tree is a bit more attractive. We have the nice white on white inside and some nice shading that emphasized the textures and it all leads you right to the tree which now has detail restored to it and the ground.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2036/2090462456_840046155e_o.jpg
To take this shot, you would have had to expose more for the outdoor illumination.
The idea here is to get you to previsualize these two scenarios while you are at the scene. You could take is a step further like one of the previous posters suggested and have a person in the doorway...how long would you be willing to wait for that opportunity? Many times it is impossible to wait that long but it should be something you think about. Add to it, the possibility of that person being in one of the two scenarios I've presented here.
I think perhaps what you actually got was a cross between two ideas in one photo. Or I could be completely wrong about this in which case, these two images would serve as other ideas you may not have thought of when you were there.
One down, one to go! But it may have to wait until tomorrow night. Right now I have to go study more bloody CSS for work ;-)
P.S. John, if you would like to have the layered Photoshop CS2 file I used to make these, just let me know.
This is good stuff. I am awaiting your second photo review for tomorrow.
john neal
12-06-2007, 00:51
mgilvey,
Boy, you sure saw my dilemma when it came to presenting this image!
[edit: to answer your question - I have been taking B&W pics since 1959, so I'm fairly proficient technically, but that does not prevent me from landing in the horns of a dilemma quite often when it comes to both pre-visualisation and final print presentation]
When I took the shot, I was after the white on white "glow", as per your first reworking above. However, when I saw that on my monitor, I didn't like my result (probably due to lack of expertise in PS) as it was not as pure as you present it. I accept that I probably should have done something to remove those wires, as they are a distraction - my route would probably have been a crop, due to limited digital skills.
I have actually prepared another version of the shot to share with the guys here. It more closely reflects your second version, in that i have pulled the highlights down to bring out the tree in the background. Unfortunately, I don't think it is a clear as yours, I'm getting some artefacts in the shadows in the lower left corner that I don't find attractive. I think this is the version that I would have produced in the traditional wet darkroom - probably by split-grade printing and pre-flashing the paper to control the contrast range. I will post my attempt later, from home.
Having said all of that - and having seen your improvement on my efforts - I still have a bit of a dilemma about which I actually prefer. I can see merits in both, and an appeal in both (albeit for different reasons). There is an awful lot of detail in the neg, and I have always shied away from not reproducing what is there, as it is. Maybe this is holding me back as an art photographer? From your excellent work above, I'm warming toward the first one as art.
I think I need to produce physical prints and look at them in the flesh (as it were), and live with them for a while to finally decide. It would be very interesting, and instructional, to be able to have the layered PS files - thanks for your kind offer. I will PM you to arrange how I can get them.
To the other guys here who commented - many thanks, I really struggled to select an image to post here. I have a whole series taken at the same time as the one shown. All were taken about 18 months ago in Tenerife, but did not get processed until a couple of weeks ago due to the film hiding in the back of a drawer!
The location is a mountain village that is partly abandoned. This is the church, which is one of the few remaining buildings in one piece. It has this cloister around 3 sides, with a wonderful wooden roof (I have lots of shots of that). The lights was full sun, and the whitewashed walls were causing plenty of bounce, hence the very high contrast. I had only taken Delta 400 with me (fool!) and could not get anything else in B&W on the island.
I had wondered about producing a small monograph on this village, but I think the rest of the film could use mgilveys skills to make that a reality ;)
Thanks for the input - I have been greatly encouraged, and learnt some important lessons. I will be back for a future critique!
john neal
12-06-2007, 09:59
OK, here is the revisited version of this shot that I created last night.
I don't have the PS skills to make the sort of improvements that mgilvey managed, so I cropped the wires - probably changes the feel of the shot somewhat, and it doesn't glow in the same way. So, shoot me down some more ;)
This note was written before you posted your updated photo.
NEAL WROTE: "Having said all of that - and having seen your improvement on my efforts - I still have a bit of a dilemma about which I actually prefer. I can see merits in both, and an appeal in both (albeit for different reasons). There is an awful lot of detail in the neg, and I have always shied away from not reproducing what is there, as it is. Maybe this is holding me back as an art photographer? From your excellent work above, I'm warming toward the first one as art."
Well, here then lies the problem yes? Which one do you feel you "have to" like best? Don't answer that...instead, can't you like both? Why not? Imagine for a minute that you were going to hang this image in two different rooms. One room is very open space and a lot of ambient light comes in. Which image would look best? Now lets say you have another room that has those little manicured trees you see in Greek garden designs, now which image works best in this room. Both do not work in both rooms but each does work in one room, very strongly...does that make one better than the other? No.
How would this effect your previsualization knowing that it is possible to change the mood of one image to work in a number of places. Is there a short answer to this, yes, bracket and maybe change the point of view several times so you have a picture that will fit many different ideas, but I think it becomes more spiritual once you start trying to figure out what emotion you want people to come away with after looking at your image and this is what I'm trying to previsualize when the shutter is clicked. This is what will help you decide how to expose the film or chip when you are at the location.
I think this is where Ansel Adams had an advantage shooting a view camera. We take our 35mm's and just shoot away from one second to the next, we don't take the time to figure out just what we want the final image to look like in the end...or maybe it's just me. Jeff Curto (camerapostion.com podcast) and Brooks Jenson (lenswork.com podcast) have both explained that when using a large format camera, there is a certain amount of seriousness about it that causes onlookers to associate more importance with what the photographers doing. Likewise, there is a certain amount of serious thinking that must go into the photo before the shutter is released on the photographers part. I think that just by mentioning this, I will try to slow down more like I used to do when I had an assignment.
To answer your question, just because you didn't print ALL of the information on the negative does not mean that if you did print it all that it would not also be art. Looking at my second version, doesn't the way the shading envoke a feeling or does it just look like an execution of placing all the information that was on the negative onto the print (screen in this case). For me, I get a feeling...even a story that tells my eye to follow a stone pathway that leads to an airy soft illuminated room that leads me to a garden and there ends the story—it envokes curiosity.
The first version also does this but in this case, the etherial presence of the bright area envoke curiosity and that feeling of being bathed in warm soft ambient light (don't you dare ask me what that feels like, ha, ha ;-) but the curiosity continues because I will never know what is inside that mystical illumination.
Can't they both be art?
I think the second version is certainly closer to the "nonart" idea though. Maybe, in our efforts to make art of our work we should ask, what could we do to NOT make it look like art? Poor printing or exposure, certainly but beyond that, what kind of intent in the printing would cause it to not look like art. Perhaps knowing that will also tell us what to do to make it art.
I wonder, if this were a perfectly balanced photo, i.e. indoor and outdoor exposures were right in the right zones, would it loose it's art feeling? Interest idea. I ask that because as HDR in digital photography becomes more popular and people are able to do what the zone system has long been doing for years, at what point is it just a well exposed document of a scene and when is it art.
This stuff can make your head spin as mine is right now or maybe its the fact that I'm sitting in my unheated Jeep in the middle of a freezing parking lot while eating my lunch. Kind of surreal to hear what I just wrote given where I was when I wrote it.
EmilGil, you're next! Ha Ha!
The reason I selected your photo is because like Neal's photo, it also says "What if". I like this image very much because the triangle my eye makes going from the man to the leftmost light post, up to the PIZZERIA sign and back down to the man. The verticals are straight as well. I felt it could use a few enhancements though.
Here you can see I cropped out the top and very bottom of the image, I thought they detracted from the attention that the front of the building wanted. I also lightened some of the plants behind the man to separate him a little from that area. Other things I did were to darken the black point a little, it looks like you had it set for hardcopy printing instead of on-screen and the last thing I did was look for something that would be white or in the 1/4 tone range because apart from the bright section of wall on the right (which I toned down) there didn't appear to be any real white point.
The splotches on the face of the building are very interesting and I have not doubt that is partly why you chose to photograph this building. They add a lot of character to the photo so I made a mask for them and punched up the level of lightness on them a tiny bit. Oh, did anyone miss the light that was reflecting in the window...I don't miss it. I told you I remove things that don't work.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2381/2092191427_e09993c31e_o.jpg
I would not like the photo as much if there was no reflection of the man in the window...I almost wish you had clicked the shutter just a little earlier so his head in the reflection was not touching the dark left edge. And here is where my discussion begins.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2025/2092971070_4d82068f8e_o.jpg
I am under the assumption that most of, if not all of the photos displayed on this website were taken with a rangefinder and not an SLR with a motor drive. Knowing this, it becomes even more important to have good previsualization. Take this image for example. You don't have to answer these questions, they are more like me just thinking out loud. How many photos of this do you have? Are there more on the contact sheet the perhaps were not as good or was this a grab shot you did on your way to some other location or just wandering around the town?
How long did you wait for someone to walk in front of the window before you took the photo? Did you know you wanted to capture that or was it just become a happy surprise? Did you think about what this image would have looked like of someone would have been leaning in the doorway, standing still while people on the sidewalk passed by in a blur?
How does having people in the image change the mood as oppose to there not being anyone in it? What if you only suggested people for example, "What if" instead of the man in the photo, what if you only caught just his back and leg walking out of the photo? You would still have the beautiful face of the building but then, just a subtle hint of mystery with the mans leg exiting thereby adding a human element but still keeping the front of the restaurant the subject. How much of the man do we really have to see to make a statement about the restaurant or that people were not going into it? Is his face really important? I think not, in fact, I think in this image, seeing his face makes me want to know more about him and not the face of the building.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2157/2092971040_24b9a837c1_o.jpg
Knowing this, would you have waited longer for someone to appear in the doorway? Would you have waited for the man to walk out of the photo? I could be wrong, you might still have these images on your negatives or it may not have been your intention to have the face of the building to be the subject, maybe it was the man. I wanted to present this idea for those reading this critique so they will ask themselves these questions before clicking the shutter. If you are shooting with a rangefinder, you have to think about these things because you only get one chance to catch it but... at least you can wait around for it to happen again.
I leave you with a HCB version just for fun.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2268/2092191319_50d82cc290_o.jpg
Looks like I forgot to turn off one of my curves on the flowers. Also could have done a better job on the retouching around the small window near the sidewalk. Oh well, I'm tired and I'm going night-night.
Bon nuit!
john neal
12-07-2007, 10:27
...instead, can't you like both?
Yes, that's possible, and I do. I guess I'm used to thinking that a "straight" print is a record shot, and not art per se. However, if the photographer is good enough, the art comes from the act of composition, so I take your point :)
Why not? Imagine for a minute that you were going to hang this image in two different rooms. One room is very open space and a lot of ambient light comes in. Which image would look best? Now lets say you have another room that has those little manicured trees you see in Greek garden designs, now which image works best in this room. Both do not work in both rooms but each does work in one room, very strongly...does that make one better than the other? No.
Point taken - if only I had the skill in choosing the composition at the point of exposure....
I think this is where Ansel Adams had an advantage shooting a view camera. We take our 35mm's and just shoot away from one second to the next, we don't take the time to figure out just what we want the final image to look like in the end...or maybe it's just me. Jeff Curto (camerapostion.com podcast) and Brooks Jenson (lenswork.com podcast) have both explained that when using a large format camera, there is a certain amount of seriousness about it that causes onlookers to associate more importance with what the photographers doing.
Time is the most valuable commodity - I tend to work at extremes - either I walk around banging off shots as I see them without too much thought. Alternatively, I spend ages looking for the best angle - not sure that always works either, as it is easy to fall into analysis paralysis. Generally though, I would agree, more time taken in planning a shot will make a big difference.
...Can't they both be art?
Oh yes - I'm getting he message, but as above, I need an art implant ;)
...I wonder, if this were a perfectly balanced photo, i.e. indoor and outdoor exposures were right in the right zones, would it loose it's art feeling? Interest idea. I ask that because as HDR in digital photography becomes more popular and people are able to do what the zone system has long been doing for years, at what point is it just a well exposed document of a scene and when is it art.
I think that it would lose a lot of attraction if it were perfect all over - it would then be a true "record" shot, that could be seen as rather boring. I think you have a valid point about digital - a lot of digital output is completely soullless (sadly).
This stuff can make your head spin as mine is right now or maybe its the fact that I'm sitting in my unheated Jeep in the middle of a freezing parking lot while eating my lunch. Kind of surreal to hear what I just wrote given where I was when I wrote it.
Mine was spinning half way down your first post ;) I'm going to try to think this into my future work - not in a mechanistic way, but by making sure I spend enough time considering composition pre and post production visualisation, etc. having said that, if it is a real-time response shot that is needed, I will just be pressing the tit and hoping!
My sincere thanks for your input and suggestions, I think I have learned some valuable stuff along the way and will be trying again. Incidentally, I love the HCB treatment of Emil's shot - pure fun!
Just by critiqueing and breaking things down, I learn more as well. Glad I could help.
Just by critiqueing and breaking things down, I learn more as well. Glad I could help.
Even though you did not crtiique my image [:D], I learn from what you have said about the the two other images. Thank you for taking the time to constribute such a deep and insightful guest-critique.
Thanks mgilvey for your comments and efforts. You are very skillful at re-touching, especially considering the small files you had to work with. Thanks also to our other guest, jbf, for his comments.
Isn't this the point where participants say something about their image and reply to comments?
--
Monz
Monz,
Yes, this is the right time. I will tonight write something.
Thanks to all of you for this very enjoyful and interesting thread.
I chose my photo for this thread because I like the reflection in my wife's sunglasses. I also like the vintage look that I view that way. Else, it was a snapshot in the street.
I have always viewed critique sessions as the best place to post images that are "not obvious". It is often a matter of opinion what is liked and not liked. The clear aspect is the photography side and not the liking and disliking side to what is said. Obviously, my image here is not a unique image.
Thank you for your honest and constructive critique.
Thanks for the comments.
I'm not fanatical about it, but I'm try not to crop images. Therefore, I leave in half face etc. at the edge. I do, however, agree that the 1/4 face of the policeman is far from ideal.
David
Thanks for the kind comments on my photo. Here is the story behind it...
I was invited to a house-warming party and naturally took my camera with me. There were half a dozen children in the house. After lunch, I could hear some 'musical noise' coming from upstairs. I went to investigate and when I opened the door of the room where the noise was emanating from, I was greeted by the sight of these three young children engaged in an impromptu jamming session. The room was still sparsely furnished (note the mattress on the floor, no bed yet). The walls were covered in a white/cream wallpaper and there was nice mid-afternoon light streaming in from a solitary window. I just smiled and told the kids to carry on. I had the 35mm Biogon attached to the Leica M6 already and once they had gotten used to me being there, I took several shots. They were un-posed. I used the M6's built-in light meter and metered for the floor (I think).
After scanning the negative (3200dpi, Epson F-3200), I cropped the image slightly and did some minor Photoshopping (levels, curves, spotting, unsharp mask, border).
@Formal: I thought about cloning out the socket on the wall but decided against it because it looked fairly unobtrusive to me.
This is my favourite shot of the session. Who says 'never work with children'?!
All the best.
--
Monz
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.