student photographer... which photo to use?
acprkit
I am 16 and very interested in photography as a hobby.
Anyway, I had the oppertunity to photograph a pair of hummingbird
chicks in their nest. I need help on which of my three narrowed down
photos to choose, and/or how to crop them. I would like to choose one
to print and possibly submit to some photography contests.
Here is a link to the three.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paallin/
Thanks!
Unspam
I think you need to concentrate more on the main subject in your
composition, crop the picture if you can't get closer while you are taking
the picture. The viewer needs a point of focus or we won't be sure what you
are showing us.
vickyd...@hotmail.co.uk
Although the subject matter is not the clearest in the third image, I
still like that one the best! The colour and composition is more
visually exciting. But If you are planning on cropping one, then I
would go for the second image! Good luck!
The One
"acprkit" <acp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188867426....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
You're the student you decide..........
UC
Very little to get excited about. You have littlse sense of
composition or light. You have no business entering 'contests' yet,
and when you are qualified to do so, you will realize that there is no
point in doing so.
Cats
Well there's nothing like encouraging someone, even if they ask a
silly question. Of course as a student the choice has to be theirs
not ours, but in that short paragraph you've not only been rude to the
OP, you've also been rude to all the people who do enter and enjoy
competitions, whatever level that be at. And BTW there is almost
always no such thing as being 'qualifed' to do so, though at
competitions where there is a filtering process most photos don't get
accepted.
UC
Most people should not be encouraged to work in a field in which they
show little promise. Photo competitions are meaningless exercises. By
the time you're good enough too win one, you should realize there's
little to be gained from doing so. I have judged photo competitions
myself, and I often found so little understanding of what makes a good
photograph that I despaired of picking a winner.
Cats
To you. But not to everyone.
> By
> the time you're good enough too win one, you should realize there's
> little to be gained from doing so. I have judged photo competitions
> myself, and I often found so little understanding of what makes a good
> photograph that I despaired of picking a winner.
Hope you aren't doing it now then. Part of the joy is that given the
same set of photos, judges will come up with different results - in
other words it's an art full of shades of grey (not to mention R,G &
B!), not something with a black & white answer.
UC
Hell, no. What a complete fucking waste of time..
Ken Hart
"Cats" <ramw...@uk2.net> wrote in message
news:1190097337.3...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 17, 9:29 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 8:57 pm, acprkit <acpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi
>>
>> > I am 16 and very interested in photography as a hobby.
>>
>> > Anyway, I had the oppertunity to photograph a pair of hummingbird
>> > chicks in their nest. I need help on which of my three narrowed down
>> > photos to choose, and/or how to crop them. I would like to choose one
>> > to print and possibly submit to some photography contests.
>>
>> > Here is a link to the three.
>>
>> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/paallin/
>>
>> > Thanks!
>>
>> Very little to get excited about. You have littlse sense of
>> composition or light. You have no business entering 'contests' yet,
>> and when you are qualified to do so, you will realize that there is no
>> point in doing so.
I respectfully disagree; the OP has some sense of composition and light, but
needs a bit of guidance on how to make it work...
Ruke #1-- Light areas draw your attention away from dark areas. Ruke #2--
The rule of thirds: divide the frame into thirds both horiaontally and
vertically (a 'tic-tac-toe' ) Put the subject at one of the intersections of
two lines. Rule #3-- Create a natural frame around the subject. Rule #4--
Consider breaking the rules if it makes a better picture!
As for entering contests, remember that there are a lot more losers than
winners!
>
> Well there's nothing like encouraging someone, even if they ask a
> silly question. Of course as a student the choice has to be theirs
> not ours, but in that short paragraph you've not only been rude to the
> OP, you've also been rude to all the people who do enter and enjoy
> competitions, whatever level that be at. And BTW there is almost
> always no such thing as being 'qualifed' to do so, though at
> competitions where there is a filtering process most photos don't get
> accepted.
>
I looked at the pictures, and will try to offer some constructive
criticism...
Perhaps it's just the web page or my monitor, but the purple cast of the
first two bothers me. The subject does not "pop" out from the background.
Perhaps the birds/nest could be lightened and the background darkened. (In
conventional wet-system processing, dodge the birds, or burn-in the
background). Also a slightly higher angle would have gotten more bird, less
nest. On the third picture, the out-of-focus leaf in the lower left corner
is distracting.
Of the other pitures on the page, 150041- the church overall view is nice.
The lines of the construction draw the eye toward the arch and window in the
center. It would help to darken the lighted area in the upper left corner.
That area competes for attention because it is so bright. (The viewer will
typically be drawn toward lighter areas of the photo. For competition, some
photographers will burn-in the edges of the photo,)
150001-- the flower against the sky is also nice, but it suffers from the
light area to the right. Perhaps it could be cropped to a vertical, making
it two lowers instead of three.
DSC0050-- stained glass. Too much floor, not enough ceiling. The door to the
right and the window (?) to the left are distracting. The curved of the arch
above the window makes a 'frame' for the window, but being cut off makes it
incomplete. This would benefit by being vertical, showing the light on the
floor leading you to the window, and the arch over the window holding your
attention on the window.
I hope that my comments are helpful.
romeo
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I would have to agree with UC,. Contests are a waste of your valuable
time for many, many reasons! They were invented in the beginning for
talentless want-a-bee's to make money (Entry fees) off of your hard
work. My company (Mine), made a formal declaration years ago, that-
"WE DO NOT BUY AWARDS" (and shame on the one that does). We have won
many distinguished awards through the years and never, ever entered a
contest. Those awards mean much more and are greatly cherished, plus
have much important meaning to us.
"Joining a contest is like letting the waiter eat you lunch".
(And besides--you might loose, and you probably will).
I have a whole file of emails-maybe thousands of contest announcements
and deadline extensions (more time to make more money).
I've have been a judge in contests--and I know what politics goes on
behind the scenes--and then I realized, "I never ever want to be in a
contestant".
Contests are only for want-a-bee's to buy achievements, because
they don't deserve them.
LOVE the work, accolades will take care of themselves.
Secondly--Rules are made to be broken. If you follow all the RULES
faithfully your work will be perfect and look like everybody else's.
-Ansel Adams once said---"There are no rules for good photographs,
there are only good photographs."
"If you want to make a difference, you have to be different"!
BUT--you have to know the rules so you'll know how to break them.
romeo
Cats
<snip>
>
> I would have to agree with UC,. Contests are a waste of your valuable
> time for many, many reasons! They were invented in the beginning for
> talentless want-a-bee's to make money (Entry fees) off of your hard
> work. My company (Mine), made a formal declaration years ago, that-
> "WE DO NOT BUY AWARDS" (and shame on the one that does). We have won
> many distinguished awards through the years and never, ever entered a
> contest. Those awards mean much more and are greatly cherished, plus
> have much important meaning to us.
The vast majority of contests entered in the UK are free, as they are
run by the camera clubs we belong to.
Cats
> faithfully your work will be perfect and look like everybody else's.
>
> -Ansel Adams once said---"There are no rules for good photographs,
> there are only good photographs."
>
> "If you want to make a difference, you have to be different"!
>
> BUT--you have to know the rules so you'll know how to break them.
>
Absolutely - and the place a lot of us learn the rules is in camera
club comps. Picasso could draw, he had to be able to draw to produce
the 'childish' work that came along. I'd certainly rate a camera club
comp *way* above Usenet for learning the rules. For one thing there
is more useful feedback, for another thing since the judge is aware
that the photographer is probably in the room they are more tactful
tham a great many Usenet postings are - just have a look at some in
this thread for examples.
I certainly wouldn't suggest that the OP enters contests he has to pay
to enter with the shots he has posted links to. However (assuming the
US is like the UK in this respect) joining a camera club and entering
their competitions could be very fruitful. Also, if he is seriously
interested in wildlife photography it's a very specialised area, and
joining a club can be a way to meet a few people with a similar
interest, and also a way to see some decent nature shots.
romeo
Cats <ramw...@uk2.net> wrote:
I'M SO SORRY--My counsel was meant for the original poster. I forgive
your kind and thoughtful appraisal of my advice, as I'm sure you
respect my personal views. Thanks much for the information on UK camera
clubs. I must have thought we were discussing this on a whole different
level, so it wouldn't apply in this case. I'm sure I must know someone
has made it BIG from the camera clubs, but I just can't think of any
right now. I'm sure CC's are a great place for the amateur to meet
people of like interests and get much valuable feedback on photography
and learn it's rules.
I ironically bought my first camera at a camera club auction and I have
reluctantly lectured at another.
I sure wouldn't want to be caught being guilty of discouraging a
Picasso, (although I'm not much of a fan of Picasso's). But generally
everything I said was true, in my humble opinion (IMHO).
I will have to remember to save my "Priceless Gems of Professional
Information" for the future of our budding Picasso.
Or maybe not?
Again thank you ever so much for your _____!
Cats
<snip>
>
> Again thank you ever so much for your _____!-
Thanks, us UK folk all love having the p*ss extracted.
romeo
<ramw...@uk2.net> wrote:
You're very welcome, let me know next time you're full of it. I'll be
so glad to help!
Cats
> In article <1190314638.309429.8...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Cats
>
> <ramwa...@uk2.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 7:01 pm, romeo <romeo77r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > Again thank you ever so much for your _____!-
>
> > Thanks, us UK folk all love having the p*ss extracted.
>
> You're very welcome, let me know next time you're full of it. I'll be
> so glad to help!
I'll also remember you next time I want patronising.
UC
> In article <1190144944.138518.20...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, UC
I was speaking about judging contests, which takes a lot of time.
Entering them doesn't really waste time, it wastes effort..
Cats
<snip>
>
> I was speaking about judging contests, which takes a lot of time.
> Entering them doesn't really waste time, it wastes effort.
I can't quite see how something can waste effort and not time since in
my experience effort takes time. What do you think that effort (and
maybe that time) should be spent on instead? Photographically
speaking I mean?
romeo
<ramw...@uk2.net> wrote:
Thank you for your kind understanding. I'll do better next time.
UC
Just doing work and throwing most of it away, because it won't be good
enough. You needn't show it to people, because most people will be
kind and not critical enough. Look at the kind of work you want to try
(National Geographic, etc.).
Cats
Can't speak about other people obviously, but most people get to see
very few of the photos I take. The other thing is that often people
are too kind with their own photos and it's other people that are
critical.
As to National Geographic - the landscapes are OK, but IMHO it's more
useful for most people to view photos taken in places they can visit -
better still in places they know - not places they will never ever
visit.
Cats
> Cats <ramwa...@uk2.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > As to National Geographic - the landscapes are OK, but IMHO it's more
> > useful for most people to view photos taken in places they can visit -
> > better still in places they know - not places they will never ever
> > visit.
>
> like what you can't see in person? Isn't that we learn new thing from thing
> we never seen or heard of before?
In what you left of my post, there's nothing about what I like, but
about what might or might not be useful (IMHO) as inspiration for
taking better photos. Inspiration for travelling is completely
different, don't confuse them.
<snip>
Cats
> nice castles, and I even know what the queen, prince, princess etc. look
> like too. And I know them by looking at some photos taken by some strange
> photographers... and even I am not citizent of England, I do know some
> history by reading some books from writers I don't even know what they look
> like.
>
> I know it may not be useful to you, but at least it's useful to me. Or at
> least I can tell you and other that England has queen, prince, princess,
> castles etc.. that I wouldn't know if I didn't have the chance to look at
> the photos and read some book. <bg>-
Very nice, but how does any of this help you to take better photos,
which was the use being proposed for National Geographic? You seem to
be confusing looking at photos as inspiration with looking at photos
for information.
Cats
<snip>
> Hmmm when I see the queen or price then I should have known which would be
> her good angle to capture a better picture of her or him,
You are either joking or because your written English is poor it has
come out all wrong. There's no way you (or almost anyone) will be
getting to take portraits of the Queen or Prince Phillip.
> when I have the
> chance to take the picture of the castle I may have some idea what is the
> better angle as well as the limitation etc..
The castle you probably won't be seeing as you said previously you are
unlikely to visit the UK....
Robert Coe
: On Sep 18, 2:35 am, Cats <ramwa...@uk2.net> wrote:
: > On Sep 17, 9:29 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >
: >
: >
: > > On Sep 3, 8:57 pm, acprkit <acpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > > > Hi
: >
: > > > I am 16 and very interested in photography as a hobby.
: >
: > > > Anyway, I had the oppertunity to photograph a pair of hummingbird
: > > > chicks in their nest. I need help on which of my three narrowed down
: > > > photos to choose, and/or how to crop them. I would like to choose one
: > > > to print and possibly submit to some photography contests.
: >
: > > > Here is a link to the three.
: >
: > > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/paallin/
: >
: > > > Thanks!
: >
: > > Very little to get excited about. You have littlse sense of
: > > composition or light. You have no business entering 'contests' yet,
: > > and when you are qualified to do so, you will realize that there is no
: > > point in doing so.
: >
: > Well there's nothing like encouraging someone, even if they ask a
: > silly question. Of course as a student the choice has to be theirs
: > not ours, but in that short paragraph you've not only been rude to the
: > OP, you've also been rude to all the people who do enter and enjoy
: > competitions, whatever level that be at. And BTW there is almost
: > always no such thing as being 'qualifed' to do so, though at
: > competitions where there is a filtering process most photos don't get
: > accepted.
:
:
: Most people should not be encouraged to work in a field in which they
: the time you're good enough too win one, you should realize there's
: little to be gained from doing so. I have judged photo competitions
: myself, and I often found so little understanding of what makes a good
: photograph that I despaired of picking a winner.
Those who (like you) customarily berate other people's pictures should provide
samples of their own work as a reference point. (If we think your stuff is
good, we're more likely to respect your opinions.) How about some links? You
do take pictures, don't you?
Bob
Robert Coe
Besides, how can you tell whether a high school kid "shows promise"?
Photography isn't nearly as intuitive as people think; it has to be learned
and re-learned. (I wouldn't insult you by suggesting that you don't know
that.) When I was 16, the pictures I took were mostly crap. But guess what?
Ansel Adams's early pictures were mostly crap too. A touring exhibit of his
work a few years ago showed that plainly. I suspect that one reason Adams
became such a careful worker and such a stickler for sharpness was
dissatisfaction with the murky, out-of-focus pictures he took with his
Brownies. It's one thing to warn the kid that many are called but few are
chosen, but quite another to suggest that if he isn't a prodigy, he'll never
amount to anything as a photographer.
Bob
UC
Yes, sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. I don't really make
photographs for other people, but for myself, and the 'point' of many
of them might be lost on some people.
But many of the photographs I don't take are better than the ones some
people do.
A VERY small smaple of some recent work can be seen here:
http://www.photographyboard.net/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7770
UC
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:26:54 -0400, I <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>
Well, actually I started in high school and won 1st prize in statewide
competition for photojournalism two of the three years I entered. I
was good right from the start, though of course I am more skilled now.
> But guess what?
> Ansel Adams's early pictures were mostly crap too.
As well as his middle period and late period. Most of his photos were
crap.
Robert Coe
Thanks for posting it. Stylistically, most of them aren't my thing, but I did
like the RR station. It's interesting and well composed, and you didn't try to
get cute with it. For some reason I also sort of liked the storm drain. At the
other extreme, I didn't think the factory or the chairs made much of a
contribution to the set.
All of which I offer as personal opinion only, since I don't claim any
expertise in judging actual image quality.
Bob
Rob Morley
ggomezphoto
ggome...@gmail.com says...
> UC did try to provide an out for himself; "the point of many of them
> might be lost on some people." How convenient! That's bullshit (I've
> heard the same EXCUSE in classrooms and newsrooms). The work is weak
> and has little merit.
>
>
Hehe - is that lame shit or what? I could do as well as that, but I
wouldn't bother putting it on the web and I certainly wouldn't criticise
other's work on the strength of that sort of mediocrity. I suspect UC
has delusions of grandeur caused by some sort of psychiatric disorder,
which in itself is no reason to condemn him - however his general
unpleasantness definitely merits a stay in the padded cell that is the
bozo bin.
Cats
> On Sep 23, 11:51 am, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>
> > But guess what?
> > Ansel Adams's early pictures were mostly crap too.
>
> As well as his middle period and late period. Most of his photos were
> crap.
So whose are not?
UC
>
> Thanks for posting it. Stylistically, most of them aren't my thing, but I did
> like the RR station. It's interesting and well composed, and you didn't try to
> get cute with it.
You grasp right away what I find objectionable in much photography.
People try to 'force' the issue, to make everything some kind of
'statement' instead of simply seeing what's there and recording it
with some kind of sensitivity.
> For some reason I also sort of liked the storm drain.
Yeah. It's that inky blackness of the bricks that gets me too!
> At the
> other extreme, I didn't think the factory or the chairs made much of a
> contribution to the set.
>
> All of which I offer as personal opinion only, since I don't claim any
> expertise in judging actual image quality.
>
> Bob
Thank you for being candid. I don't make photographs for "other
people", and these were produced primarily for the benefit of
posterity.
Did you see both pages?
http://www.photographyboard.net/images/zoom/zoom-photo/viewsize/racing.JPG
UC
> On Sep 25, 7:52 pm, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for posting it. Stylistically, most of them aren't my thing, but I did
> > like the RR station. It's interesting and well composed, and you didn't try to
> > get cute with it. For some reason I also sort of liked the storm drain. At the
> > other extreme, I didn't think the factory or the chairs made much of a
> > contribution to the set.
>
> > All of which I offer as personal opinion only, since I don't claim any
> > expertise in judging actual image quality.
>
> > Bob
>
>
> You are certainly being quite generous re: UC's work. I am rather
> disappointed. I just expected so much more from someone who declares
> everyone else's photos crap, even Ansel Adams. I don't care for
> Adams's subject matter, but he could print. Based on this sampling,
> UC cannot (except for the grate/drain). I also think the composition
> of the biker/bowl pictures was lacking; all of those cut off shadows
> was a missed opportunity.
Can you be more specific? Which photo in particular?
> And then the bodies cut in half, heads
> right on the very top edge of the frame, etc was very unappealing.
> Cramped. (Look at Cartier-Bresson to see how it is done).
I do like to compose very tightly. Some may not approve.
http://www.photographyboard.net/images/zoom/zoom-photo/viewsize/racing.JPG
> UC did try to provide an out for himself; "the point of many of them
> might be lost on some people." How convenient!
No, what I meant is that these were not INTENDED as "exhibition work";
rather merely as records of my environment. Some are inherently more
'photogenic' than others. The exhaust tubes on top of the factory, for
instance,
http://www.photographyboard.net/images/zoom/zoom-photo/viewsize/tubes.JPG
have more visual interest than the chairs found outside an antique
shop.
http://www.photographyboard.net/images/zoom/zoom-photo/viewsize/chairs.JPG
The print of the chairs shows some very nice tones. I wish I had cut
off the corner of the window, though, now that I examine it.
> That's bullshit (I've
> heard the same EXCUSE in classrooms and newsrooms). The work is weak
> and has little merit.
You're free to have your own opinion. As I said, I do not try to copy
anyone else, especially Ansel Adams, or please anyone else. Of course,
at this stage of my life I am not worried about what other people
think, not that I think I cannot learn anything new.
> UC was wrong when he said on another posting "there are 8 billion
> assholes with digital cameras, we don't need to look at your shit or
> their shit." No, there are 8 billion and 1.
These were made with film.
>
> Gerry
>
UC
> In article <1190779975.758502.286...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> ggomezphoto
> ggomezph...@gmail.com says...> UC did try to provide an out for himself; "the point of many of them
It is personal work, which I made available simply because people ask
what I have been doing. I don't give a shit what you think.
Cats
Now that is a strange point of view given there are people in their
70s, 80s and 90s (and probably beyond) learning new stuff every day,
in all sorts of ways from practical to artistic to academic. Maybe
learning is harder than for younger folks, but they do it and
sometimes it *has* to be done, as a partner has died and their skills
have to be replicated in some degree.
UC
>
> > > UC did try to provide an out for himself; "the point of many of them
> > > might be lost on some people." How convenient!
>
> > No, what I meant is that these were not INTENDED as "exhibition work";
> > rather merely as records of my environment. Some are inherently more
> > 'photogenic' than others. The exhaust tubes on top of the factory, for
> > instance,
>
>
> > have more visual interest than the chairs found outside an antique
> > shop.
>
>
> > The print of the chairs shows some very nice tones. I wish I had cut
> > off the corner of the window, though, now that I examine it.
>
> > > That's bullshit (I've
> > > heard the same EXCUSE in classrooms and newsrooms). The work is weak
> > > and has little merit.
>
> > You're free to have your own opinion. As I said, I do not try to copy
> > anyone else, especially Ansel Adams, or please anyone else. Of course,
> > at this stage of my life I am not worried about what other people
> > think, not that I think I cannot learn anything new.
>
> > > UC was wrong when he said on another posting "there are 8 billion
> > > assholes with digital cameras, we don't need to look at your shit or
> > > their shit." No, there are 8 billion and 1.
>
> > These were made with film.
>
> > > Gerry
>
Correct. It's not made for an audience as such. My recent work is
primarily for historical record, though done with more 'flair' than
most people would.
> You present yourself as the expert; you've won your contests,
I haven't entered contests since high school.
> you've
> judged pictures,
Yes, though not recently.
> you make these grandiose statements about photography
> and photographers. You hammer people. If you had simply shown some
> generosity or compassion, or just ignored stuff you didn't like posted
> here, then I wouldn't have commented (you bring this on yourself; note
> that Princess X in a post today is now baiting you; and others think
> there might be a psychiatric disorder).
How thoughtful of you.
> I posted a link to my blog. If people look at it fine. If not, fine.
> I did not make statements about the quality of my work, or present my
> curriculum vita. To me that doesn't matter. The pictures I make just
> help me remember; remember the people in my life and the places I've
> been. I make no claims that they are great pictures, or good
> pictures, or are of any value whatsoever. The only claim I make is
> that I made them, and that I love the people in them.
That's fine. This group is primarily for discussion of photography.
UC
Do you understand "not that I think I cannot learn anything new"?
UC
>
> > Thanks for posting it. Stylistically, most of them aren't my thing, but I did
> > like the RR station. It's interesting and well composed, and you didn't try to
> > get cute with it. For some reason I also sort of liked the storm drain. At the
> > other extreme, I didn't think the factory or the chairs made much of a
> > contribution to the set.
>
> > All of which I offer as personal opinion only, since I don't claim any
> > expertise in judging actual image quality.
>
> > Bob
>
>
> You are certainly being quite generous re: UC's work. I am rather
> disappointed. I just expected so much more from someone who declares
> everyone else's photos crap, even Ansel Adams.
No, I didn't say 'everyone' but I do think 99.9% of Adams' work is
crap. He made 2 or 3 good ones.
> I don't care for
> Adams's subject matter, but he could print.
So can I. It's not hard when you don't overdevelop or underexpose your
film.
> Based on this sampling,
> UC cannot (except for the grate/drain).
My prints are just fine, just the way I like them.
> I also think the composition
> of the biker/bowl pictures was lacking; all of those cut off shadows
> was a missed opportunity.
I don't understand. The shadows were long at the time I took them,
which I chose to do deliberately. I WANTED the shadows to run off the
edge.
> And then the bodies cut in half, heads
> right on the very top edge of the frame, etc was very unappealing.
It's what I wanted.
> Cramped. (Look at Cartier-Bresson to see how it is done).
Most people waste a lot of space. I don't.
>
> UC did try to provide an out for himself; "the point of many of them
> might be lost on some people."
They are not intended as 'exhibition work'. They're for my personal
satisfaction and historical records. Also, in some cases I'm trying to
emphasize something that you may not appreciate. I don't always do the
obvious.
UC
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Your work speaks for itself.
>
> When I was younger, I could beat a dead horse longer than anyone. I
> am glad to see I have a successor.
>
> Gerry
A lot of people don't have the ability to control their photography.
Every aspect of my work is as I want it. You may not like it, but that
is a different issue. I know how to work with different kinds of light
and subject matter. I don't take the sort of photographs most people
do. They bore me. Mine may bore you. But they're technically of high
quality (sharp, exposed the way I want, composed the way I want). If
you don't like the subject matter or treatment, fine. I have no
quarrel with you. But don't mistake my work for amateurish beginner's
work. None of it is the trite bullshit that comprises most people's
work.
The situations one encounters in the real world do not always allow
for perfection. Trees or buildings may cast shadows where you don't
want them, or your subjects may run away. In that case, you simply
have to make the best of it. The kids on the bikes and skateboards had
to be coaxed in some cases to ride their bikes in the paths that I
wanted. I had them run up and down the bowl several times until I got
something useful. If you don't like them, tough shit. Go there and do
better.
UC
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
I simply want to differentiate between the work of a beginner who has
no idea what makes a photo good from an advanced photographer. The
subject matter is unimportant. If the OP thinks that photo is going
to be good because it is of a bird's nest, he's mistaken. The good
photo is one that has visual interest independent of the value or
importance of the subject matter.
UC
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> have stated "the good photo is one that has visual interest
> independent of the value or importance of the subject matter." A
> statement like that instead of your harangue and abuse could go a long
> way towards people really hearing what you say, and possibly learning
> from it.
>
> Gerry- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right. The photo of the brick-paved street with the round manhole
cover has visual appeal, yet nothing could more quotidian. Yet it
works as a photograph. I consider it to be a (modest) success. I was
not over-reaching here. There is no attempt to make this more than it
is.
http://www.photographyboard.net/component/option,com_zoom/Itemid,0/page,view/catid,1/key,145/hit,1/
The same is true of the bridge supports:
I find the reflections from the metal (where the paint has peeled) to
be interesting in themselves. The most brilliant area is a scratch,
which you can see in the largest plate. This was taken with a 560mm
lens near sundown. Only then is the area illuminated. These beams see
direct sunlight only a few minutes a day.
Cats
Doh! Sorry.
UC
Take a look at this, entitled "Greek widow".
http://www.toddyarrington.com/fineartwebgallery/images/01_GreekWidow.jpg
Do you see the weaknesses in this?
To me, this guy is a coward. He's afraid to get close enough for her
to react to him. He does not seem to be comfortable making eye
contact. Besides that, the woman blends in with the tree. There is
nothing that indicates she is a 'widow' except perhaps her black
clothing, but perhaps black clothing is not worn only by widows. The
photograph is a failure in my judgement.
Cats
I fail to see how this is connected to my message you replied to.
As to the 'Greek Widow' - is it appropriate in her culture for a
photographer to try to 'get close' to her? Is it acceptable to *her*
for him to do so (is the comfort limit hers not his), or for her to
react/interact? Is she recently widowed and grieving?
Is it a weak photo? Maybe, maybe not. Much of that's in the eye of
the viewer, plus there's no way I can personally form an opinion from
such a small image viewed on a poor (laptop) screen unless it's
clearly dire, which IMHO this one isn't.
However, looking at some of his other images the guy clearly believes
less can be more and that has appeal for me. He also has some lovely
portraits of children, though they have the advantage of being a bit
like puppies or kittens - unbearably cute when they are behaving or
asleep.
UC
That's not for us to know or care. If you photograph people, make it
worth looking at. This is a typical American's photograph. He tries to
take in too much, to tell a story in one photo. I would have
ruthlessly tightened up this scene. I would have used a longer lens,
for instance, and shot her though a window or something. This one is
really weak.
> Is it a weak photo? Maybe, maybe not. Much of that's in the eye of
> the viewer, plus there's no way I can personally form an opinion from
> such a small image viewed on a poor (laptop) screen unless it's
> clearly dire, which IMHO this one isn't.
>
> However, looking at some of his other images the guy clearly believes
> less can be more and that has appeal for me.
Some of his others are OK, but I was singling out this particular one.
This guy claims to be a pro, but this is a very poor photo in my
opinion. I see lots of similar work from Americans. You have to
isolate more than this. Look at how mine are very closely cropped.
There is no wasted area.
UC
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> commercial. I think he probably went on vacation to Greece and
> snapped those shots. I don't think it is very good documentary work.
>
> In regards to the Greek woman, the lack of separation from the
> background/tree, no facial expression (given the angle, what I can
> make out looks like no expression) and also it looks like she only has
> one leg/foot (I think one foot is coming up, which looks like a fold
> in the hem of her skirt, so she looks one legged to me).
I meant to bring up the lack of separation. She blends into the tree.
> Now, if she
> did only have one leg, and was hopping around, now that would be
> something you don't see everyday (I've spent a lot of time in Greece
> there and I don't remember seeing something like that).
>
> To me, the shot would be better without the woman, and if the archway
> of trees and the door were the focus. But even with that, there is
> not much there.
Right.
> I don't know if the guy is a coward or not; I think he is just not
> very good in an uncontrolled environment (out of a studio).
Most certainly. This is not an uncommon failing of studio or
commercial photographers.
> I prefer
> to engage the people I photograph. I don't carry long lenses, so I
> have to engage people if am going to get something of their
> character. That has its risks. I have been punched more than once,
> here and abroad.
So have I.
> I have had rocks thrown at me. I have been detained
> by the authorities. So, for someone who might not be prepared for
> something like that, maybe a longer lens, from a window, cropping in
> tighter, etc might lead to better results without the possibility of
> the negatives I listed.
>
> I agree with UC that the image does not work.
Yes, it is rather poor.
UC
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I think this guy is trying to be all things to all people, mostly
> commercial. I think he probably went on vacation to Greece and
> snapped those shots. I don't think it is very good documentary work.
>
> background/tree, no facial expression (given the angle, what I can
> make out looks like no expression) and also it looks like she only has
> one leg/foot (I think one foot is coming up, which looks like a fold
> did only have one leg, and was hopping around, now that would be
> something you don't see everyday (I've spent a lot of time in Greece
> there and I don't remember seeing something like that).
>
> To me, the shot would be better without the woman, and if the archway
> of trees and the door were the focus. But even with that, there is
> not much there.
>
> to engage the people I photograph. I don't carry long lenses, so I
> have to engage people if am going to get something of their
> character. That has its risks. I have been punched more than once,
> by the authorities. So, for someone who might not be prepared for
> something like that, maybe a longer lens, from a window, cropping in
> the negatives I listed.
>
> I agree with UC that the image does not work.
How about this one?
http://www.toddyarrington.com/portraitwebgallery/images/0582.jpg
Your opinion, please.
UC
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> like those types of backgrounds.
>
> And I don't think the pose is very flattering. His eyes look cross-
> eyed (I assume they are not) and I think it is due to the pose. What
> is he looking at?
>
> Lighting not great. No snap!
>
> Overall, corny. I would be embarassed to be the subject in a photo
> like this (but his mom probably really loves it), but there is tons of
> stuff like this out there. Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc. crank this stuff
> out all day long; this might be a little better than the Mart's, but
> for the money people who want this sort of stuff should go there--50
> wallet size, an 8x10, 2 5x7's for $19.95. Yikes.
>
> Gerry
The light is bad, the pose is bad, the whole thing is horrid. That's
my opinion.
Cats
> my opinion
So how about posting a link to one you like (doesn't matter who took
it) and have something positive to say about? It really gets tedious
with nothing but bad-mouthing other people's photos.
UC
Sometimes it's harder to find something good to say. I'm just
naturally critical. The thing that separates REALY good photographers
from the rest is the awreness that you can photograph only the surface
of things. Most of my work concerns texture, especially in black and
white, but even on color I try to work with textures and surfaces. If
you start thinking about what something IS instead of what the surface
of it looks like, then you no longer have a good photograph. The
"Greek Widow" is a perfect example. There is NOTHING in this photo
about "Greek Widowhood". That is CONCEPTUAL, not PHYSICAL. He should
have concerned himself ONLY with the superficial aspects of the scene
(countours, light and shadow, etc.).
Look again at the bridge plate and supports:
http://www.photographyboard.net/component/option,com_zoom/Itemid,0/page,view/catid,1/key,147/hit,1/
and at the underside of the trestle:
http://www.photographyboard.net/component/option,com_zoom/Itemid,0/page,view/catid,1/key,146/hit,1/
You'll note in both cases that I used strong direct, low light. Why?
To make the surfaces glow and show their shapes. Looking at the second
one in particular, note how I photographed the steps at an angle, so
that the shadows hitting them break up into zig-zags. This was done
deliberately. Note also how there are several triangles formed in the
composition, a dark one on the right, a bright one on the left, and a
third one in teh middle (the steps). All this was deliberate. I also
waited until the sun just started to illuminate the top of the steps,
giving some exposure to that area, and showing a few of the egg-shells
from the pigeons that live and nest under the trestle. (These egg-
shells may not be clearly visible on your monitor, but they can be
seen in the print.) the egg-shells add texture and surface interest to
the dark area.
Yes, the secret of this photograph's visual interest is entirely
superficial, and that is why the "Greek Widow" lacks visual interest.
Picking a photo at random from the same website, here we have someone
who tried to get 'conceptual'.
You can see that this is not exactly a portrait or a documentary
photograph. the pose is not particularly pleasing, but it is not
particularly horrible, but the whole thing is just some kind of 'set-
up', the purpose of which is unclear. The photo does not have much
visual appeal to me.
Cats
> On Sep 27, 5:29 pm, Cats <ramwa...@uk2.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 10:04 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > The light is bad, the pose is bad, the whole thing is horrid. That's
> > > my opinion
>
> > So how about posting a link to one you like (doesn't matter who took
> > it) and have something positive to say about? It really gets tedious
> > with nothing but bad-mouthing other people's photos.
>
> Sometimes it's harder to find something good to say.
<SNIP>
Maybe you should try a little harder. I'd suggest that until someone
(anyone, not just you) can be as fluent about what they like in images
(and why) as what they dislike (and why) they are handicapping their
critical facilities. Note that we tend to interpret 'criticial' as
'fault-finding', but another definition of it is 'Characterized by
careful, exact evaluation and judgment', which clearly allows for
positive as well as negative comment. In fact I'd say that 'exact
evaluation' cannot be done without both sides of the coin being
considered and commented on.
<snip>
dadiOH
> How about this one?
>
> http://www.toddyarrington.com/portraitwebgallery/images/0582.jpg
>
> Your opinion, please.
It's not awful but could certainly be improved.
1. cropped too close on left
2. kicker too hot & spill on nose
3. lower 1/3 too hot relative to face
4. background sun burst too hot (pulls attention from subject)
5. shirt collar gaps at back
6. head & eyes turned too far to subject right
7. lens focal length too short (foreshortening elbow>hand>hand)
8. camera angle too low
Implementing #7, 8, 6 would fix most of my other complaints too.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
UC
Well, the trouble is that there is really not that much good work to
talk about!
How about these:
How many million flowing water shots are there?
More:
Sunsets? Are you kidding me?
Icicles:
B&W horribly printed:
This one shows some promise (but is flawed by cat behind boy's head).
The photographer did not get down to the boy's level.
This one does not quite come off:
Horizontal format? WHY? The top of the woman's head is cut off so that
we can see more trees?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, do you see what I mean?
UC
This photograph breaks almost every 'rule' there is.
1) Gaze is directed out of the short side of the image, and away from
the guitar. Gaze should be directed toward light and guitar or viewer,
not away. His eyes are basically invisible.
2) Face is dark on the left side, which is backwards for the
composition
3) Short focal length lens was used, causing inappropriate
foreshortening .
4) Some kind of star-burst effect on background, which is completely
out of place
5) Background color hideous
This photograph is basically a disaster.
Cats
You just can't help yourself can you? Almost no image is all good or
all bad, but unfortunately you seem to have got stuck seeing only the
bad. You hint there are things you like and/or consider good about
one of them ('doesn't quite come off'') without mentioning them.
UC
Well, let's talk about that one, shall we?
http://www.photographyboard.net/images/zoom/zoom-photo/veil&gloves.jpg
1) The composition is poor, i.e., the eyes are too far up and away
from the center, and directed too much away. In the center of the shot
we have the neck and chin, in an awkward position. The lens is too
low, looking directly into the chin instead of the eyes. The left eye
is obscured by the nose, and we're looking into her nostrils. Some
fun, eh?
2) The right gloved hand is mostly cut off and seems to be blurry. In
a shot of this type, there should be good depth of field, or else the
hand should be kept entirely in the plane of focus
Here is a somewhat similar pose, done right:
http://www.vividinfinity.com/xlj/ohthree/joan_crawford-trois.jpg.
Another:
http://www.divasthesite.com/images/Joan_Crawford/Joan_Crawford_80.jpg
Another:
http://www.divasthesite.com/images/Joan_Crawford/Joan_Crawford_79.jpg
Another good one:
http://www.divasthesite.com/images/Joan_Crawford/Joan_Crawford_30.jpg
Another:
http://www.allpicturesandphotos.com/images/joan-crawford/joan-crawford-002-img.jpg
Look at here eyes in this one!
http://www.leninimports.com/joan_crawford_gallery_1.jpg
And in this one:
http://www.leninimports.com/joan_crawford_gallery_2.jpg
THESE are properly done portraits.
This one:
http://www.photographyboard.net/images/zoom/zoom-photo/veil&gloves.jpg
isn't.
dadiOH
> On Sep 28, 9:43 am, Cats <ramwa...@uk2.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 28, 2:16 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Now, do you see what I mean
>>
>> You just can't help yourself can you? Almost no image is all good
>> or all bad, but unfortunately you seem to have got stuck seeing
>> only the bad. You hint there are things you like and/or consider
>> good about one of them ('doesn't quite come off'') without
>> mentioning them.
>
> Well, let's talk about that one, shall we?
>
>
http://www.photographyboard.net/images/zoom/zoom-photo/veil&gloves.jpg
>
> 1) The composition is poor, i.e., the eyes are too far up and away
> from the center, and directed too much away. In the center of the
> shot we have the neck and chin, in an awkward position. The lens is
> too low, looking directly into the chin instead of the eyes. The
> left eye is obscured by the nose, and we're looking into her
> nostrils. Some fun, eh?
>
> 2) The right gloved hand is mostly cut off and seems to be blurry.
> In a shot of this type, there should be good depth of field, or
> else the hand should be kept entirely in the plane of focus
>
> Here is a somewhat similar pose, done right:
>
> http://www.vividinfinity.com/xlj/ohthree/joan_crawford-trois.jpg.
>
> Another:
None of them sell veils worth a damn though, do they?
As much as you picked apart your "horrible example" I'm surprised you
didn't do the same to your "good examples". They could be.
UC
I'm not so critical of them, because the strengths far outweigh the
weaknesses. Give me some examples of what you think are weaknesses.
UC
> these are any good?
Yes. Much better. Very little to criticize at all.
UC
>
> Gerry-
Very little of modern photography excites me.
Robert Coe
: On Sep 28, 7:35 am, "dadiOH" <dad...@guesswhere.com> wrote:
: > UC wrote:
: > > How about this one?
: >
: > >http://www.toddyarrington.com/portraitwebgallery/images/0582.jpg
: >
: > > Your opinion, please.
: >
: > It's not awful but could certainly be improved.
: >
: > 1. cropped too close on left
: >
: > 2. kicker too hot & spill on nose
: >
: > 3. lower 1/3 too hot relative to face
: >
: > 4. background sun burst too hot (pulls attention from subject)
: >
: > 5. shirt collar gaps at back
The shirt is just too big: at least an inch (25 mm) in neck size. If the
photographer bought him the shirt (possible, since it's obviously new), then
it's his fault. Otherwise not.
: > 6. head & eyes turned too far to subject right
: >
: > 7. lens focal length too short (foreshortening elbow>hand>hand)
: >
: > 8. camera angle too low
: >
: > Implementing #7, 8, 6 would fix most of my other complaints too.
: >
: > --
: >
: > dadiOH
: > ____________________________
:
: This photograph breaks almost every 'rule' there is.
:
: 1) Gaze is directed out of the short side of the image, and away from
: the guitar. Gaze should be directed toward light and guitar or viewer,
: not away. His eyes are basically invisible.
:
: 2) Face is dark on the left side, which is backwards for the
: composition
:
: 3) Short focal length lens was used, causing inappropriate
: foreshortening .
Both you and dadiOH made that point, but I'm confused. Isn't it a long lens
that causes foreshortening? The conventional wisdom is that portrait lenses
are longer than "normal" to keep the subject's nose from sticking out too
much. In any case, less foreshortening would make the subject's arm dominate
the picture even more than it already does.
: 4) Some kind of star-burst effect on background, which is completely
: out of place
:
: 5) Background color hideous
:
: This photograph is basically a disaster.
My take is that it was intended for a CD album cover or some similar use. The
close cropping, peculiar lighting, starburst decoration, and low color
temperature may be intended to evoke a nightclub. We're supposed to conclude
that something has distracted the subject and he's turned away from the
spotlight. Viewed in that light (so to speak), I don't think it's quite as
bad.
Bob
UC
Robert Coe
Yes, I am. Did you, by any chance, actually read what I wrote? If so, would
you care to address my hypothesis and/or propose a more plausible explanation
of that picture?
Bob
dadiOH
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:27:28 -0000, UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sep 28, 7:35 am, "dadiOH" <dad...@guesswhere.com> wrote:
>>> 5. shirt collar gaps at back
>
> The shirt is just too big: at least an inch (25 mm) in neck size.
> If the photographer bought him the shirt (possible, since it's
> obviously new), then it's his fault. Otherwise not.
Too big or not it is easy to fix the gapping.
______________
>> 3) Short focal length lens was used, causing inappropriate
>> foreshortening .
>
> Both you and dadiOH made that point, but I'm confused. Isn't it a
> long lens that causes foreshortening? The conventional wisdom is
> that portrait lenses are longer than "normal" to keep the subject's
> nose from sticking out too much. In any case, less foreshortening
> would make the subject's arm dominate the picture even more than it
> already does.
A longer lens means that the camera would be further from the subject;
consequently, the closer portions of the subject would not be
exaggerated in size as they were.
foreshortening -
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aforeshortening
UC
Yes.
>If so, would
> you care to address my hypothesis and/or propose a more plausible explanation
> of that picture?
Sure. Incompetence. Trying to 'creative'.
Robert Coe
: Robert Coe wrote:
: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:27:28 -0000, UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com>
: > wrote:
: >> On Sep 28, 7:35 am, "dadiOH" <dad...@guesswhere.com> wrote:
:
:
: >>> 5. shirt collar gaps at back
: >
: > The shirt is just too big: at least an inch (25 mm) in neck size.
: > If the photographer bought him the shirt (possible, since it's
: > obviously new), then it's his fault. Otherwise not.
:
: Too big or not it is easy to fix the gapping.
: ______________
:
: >> 3) Short focal length lens was used, causing inappropriate
: >> foreshortening .
: >
: > Both you and dadiOH made that point, but I'm confused. Isn't it a
: > long lens that causes foreshortening? The conventional wisdom is
: > that portrait lenses are longer than "normal" to keep the subject's
: > nose from sticking out too much. In any case, less foreshortening
: > would make the subject's arm dominate the picture even more than it
: > already does.
:
: A longer lens means that the camera would be further from the subject;
: consequently, the closer portions of the subject would not be
: exaggerated in size as they were.
:
: foreshortening -
: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aforeshortening
I stand corrected, I guess. Since I first began to get my head around the
effect of a telephoto lens, I've understood foreshortening to refer to the
perspective effect that makes a picture taken by a telephoto have less
apparent depth than one would expect at a given viewing distance. That seems
to be the exact opposite of what's implied by your statement above and by one
or two of the definitions pointed to by that link. The rest of the definitions
on the linked page seem to be all over the place. I guess the definition of
"foreshortening" is in the eye of the beholder. (No pun intended, but if the
shoe fits, wear it, I always say.) ;^)
Bob
dadiOH
>> As much as you picked apart your "horrible example" I'm surprised
>> you didn't do the same to your "good examples". They could be.
>
> I'm not so critical of them, because the strengths far outweigh the
> weaknesses. Give me some examples of what you think are weaknesses.
OK. First of all, I happen to be a fan of the 30s-50s movie studio
publicity shots. It is nice to see hard light once in a while.
Nothing against umbrellas and soft boxes - they are easy and
pleasant - just that hard lighting is different. And harder. Some of
the studio publicity photographers were very adept at using it, others
less so.
Secondly, many of the examples you linked to are quite contrasty.
Might just be my video settings (gamma of 1.0), might not but lots of
highlights are washed out.
http://www.vividinfinity.com/xlj/ohthree/joan_crawford-trois.jpg
Being very picky, I would have preferred the fill to be moved to the
side opposite the main so the shadow descending downward from right
thumb would have been more open. Hard to tell from the reproduction
but it looks as if the negative retouching was not so great.
http://www.vividinfinity.com/xlj/ohthree/joan_crawford-trois.jpg
Same thing with the fill. The shadow pocket in the inner side of
subject's right eye is just plain unpleasant.
http://www.divasthesite.com/images/Joan_Crawford/Joan_Crawford_79.jpg
Looks like it was made from a copy of a wallet size photo that someone
had
carried in their wallet for a decade or two. Sure a huge, square chin
too. IOW, ugh.
http://www.divasthesite.com/images/Joan_Crawford/Joan_Crawford_30.jpg
I like it well enough except for the contrast. Some detail in dark
areas, little in highlight area of skin. Fingers on right are barely
delineated.
http://www.vividinfinity.com/xlj/ohthree/joan_crawford-trois.jpg
Extrapolating to what was probably there before being digitized, I
like this one. By far the best thus far.
http://www.leninimports.com/joan_crawford_gallery_1.jpg
Yeah, it is nice. It would be nicer IMO without the hairlight
spilling onto cheek, nose and fintertips.
http://www.leninimports.com/joan_crawford_gallery_2.jpg
Gee, another white hand. No, wait...there is a face there too. Right
next to the hand and above the featureless mass of black below. But
what in the world is that whtie thing at the bottem center? Negative
retouching on this one is good.
Robert Coe
Yeah, those are pretty awful. But three of your links refer to the same
picture. That's not what you intended, is it?
Bob
UC
> UC wrote:
> >> As much as you picked apart your "horrible example" I'm surprised
> >> you didn't do the same to your "good examples". They could be.
>
> > I'm not so critical of them, because the strengths far outweigh the
> > weaknesses. Give me some examples of what you think are weaknesses.
>
> OK. First of all, I happen to be a fan of the 30s-50s movie studio
> publicity shots. It is nice to see hard light once in a while.
> Nothing against umbrellas and soft boxes - they are easy and
> pleasant - just that hard lighting is different. And harder. Some of
> the studio publicity photographers were very adept at using it, others
> less so.
>
> Secondly, many of the examples you linked to are quite contrasty.
> Might just be my video settings (gamma of 1.0), might not but lots of
> highlights are washed out.
>
> http://www.vividinfinity.com/xlj/ohthree/joan_crawford-trois.jpg
> Being very picky, I would have preferred the fill to be moved to the
> side opposite the main so the shadow descending downward from right
> thumb would have been more open.
There is fill on the viewer's right side. I don't understand what you
are driving at.
> Hard to tell from the reproduction
> but it looks as if the negative retouching was not so great.
This print is not that good.
>
> http://www.vividinfinity.com/xlj/ohthree/joan_crawford-trois.jpg
> Same thing with the fill. The shadow pocket in the inner side of
> subject's right eye is just plain unpleasant.
>
> http://www.divasthesite.com/images/Joan_Crawford/Joan_Crawford_79.jpg
> Looks like it was made from a copy of a wallet size photo that someone
> had
> carried in their wallet for a decade or two. Sure a huge, square chin
> too. IOW, ugh.
>
> http://www.divasthesite.com/images/Joan_Crawford/Joan_Crawford_30.jpg
> I like it well enough except for the contrast. Some detail in dark
> areas, little in highlight area of skin. Fingers on right are barely
> delineated.
Could be a better scan is needed.
>
> http://www.vividinfinity.com/xlj/ohthree/joan_crawford-trois.jpg
> Extrapolating to what was probably there before being digitized, I
> like this one. By far the best thus far.
>
> http://www.leninimports.com/joan_crawford_gallery_1.jpg
> Yeah, it is nice. It would be nicer IMO without the hairlight
> spilling onto cheek, nose and fintertips.
Agreed.
>
> http://www.leninimports.com/joan_crawford_gallery_2.jpg
> Gee, another white hand. No, wait...there is a face there too. Right
> next to the hand and above the featureless mass of black below. But
> what in the world is that whtie thing at the bottem center? Negative
> retouching on this one is good.
Left hand placement is poor.
But you have to agree that these photos are pretty impressive overall.
dadiOH
> Yeah, those are pretty awful. But three of your links refer to the
> same picture. That's not what you intended, is it?
No, not at all. I must have forgotten to copy again before pasting
:(
If you are interested, they are commented on in the same order UC
linked them in his post above mine.
dadiOH
> On Sep 30, 3:14 pm, "dadiOH" <dad...@guesswhere.com> wrote:
>> UC wrote:
>>>> As much as you picked apart your "horrible example" I'm surprised
>>>> you didn't do the same to your "good examples". They could be.
>>
>>> I'm not so critical of them, because the strengths far outweigh
>>> the weaknesses. Give me some examples of what you think are
>>> weaknesses.
>>
>> OK. First of all, I happen to be a fan of the 30s-50s movie studio
>> publicity shots. It is nice to see hard light once in a while.
>> Nothing against umbrellas and soft boxes - they are easy and
>> pleasant - just that hard lighting is different. And harder.
>> Some of the studio publicity photographers were very adept at
>> using it, others less so.
>>
>> Secondly, many of the examples you linked to are quite contrasty.
>> Might just be my video settings (gamma of 1.0), might not but lots
>> of highlights are washed out.
>>
>> http://www.vividinfinity.com/xlj/ohthree/joan_crawford-trois.jpg
>> Being very picky, I would have preferred the fill to be moved to
>> the side opposite the main so the shadow descending downward from
>> right thumb would have been more open.
>
> There is fill on the viewer's right side. I don't understand what
> you are driving at.
Yes, it is at viewer's right and somewhat high...what is sometimes
called "dynamic fill". One could also think of it as a secondary
main.
One can place the fill (or fills) in various places relative to the
camera axis. Where they are placed markedly changes their effect. In
this case, the fill is creating the smaller nose shadow, the shadows
around the subject's right eye and on her right cheek.
There is also another fill (the main one actually) about on the camera
axis. You can tell it is there because the shadows created by the
dynamic fill are partially filled. You can also see its reflection in
the pupil of the subject's left eye...it is a largish reflector with a
cap covering the bulb so no direct light hits subject.
Now, what I was saying was that had the dynamic fill been moved to
camera left, it would have diminished what I find to be a distracting
shadow on the subjects right cheek. If it had also been lowered, it
would have also opened up subjects right eye. Finally, the nose
shadow would have disappeared. IOW, the photo would have been very
different.
Upon reflection, I don't think I'd change the fill. I *would* change
the kicker position so it became just an accent light...now, it is
like another main but just for subject's right hand. The spill from
that light onto her lower right jaw is what is really creating the
light/dark juxtaposition I am complaining about.
____________________
> But you have to agree that these photos are pretty impressive
> overall.
I think they are entirely suitable for the purpose intended. I don't
think I would call them "impressive".
The whole purpose of my last couple of posts has been to demonstrate
to you that most photographs have flaws...most can be improved. It
all depends upon the viewer's personal criteria and - IMO - the
purpose of the photograph.
You tend to be cruelly pedantic in your assessment of photographs
unless they meet your rather narrow set of criteria. It is my hope
that some of the vitriol be replaced with constructive criticism.
BTW, in another post you were criticising some other photographer's
photos. I didn't look at them but apparently there was one or more of
flowing water photographed with a slow shutter speed. You found it
trite and asked - rhetorically, I am sure - how often that has been
done. Allow me to answer that by saying that flowing water pix have
about the same frequency as pix of shiny bricks with manhole covers
:)
UC
I have not seen any such 'manhole' photos before, that I can recall.
Most people would overlook such a subject matter.
dadiOH
>> BTW, in another post you were criticising some other photographer's
>> photos. I didn't look at them but apparently there was one or
>> more of flowing water photographed with a slow shutter speed. You
>> found it trite and asked - rhetorically, I am sure - how often
>> that has been done. Allow me to answer that by saying that
>> flowing water pix have about the same frequency as pix of shiny
>> bricks with manhole covers
>
> I have not seen any such 'manhole' photos before, that I can recall.
> Most people would overlook such a subject matter.
Next time I see one I'll point it out to you. May be a while, I've
seen so many that my mind tends to tune them out. :)
UC
I haven't that I can recall. At least not any done the way I did that
one...
UC
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I've even done one. I am not saying it is great; I am just saying I
> did one. Just a little Canon 5 Megapixel point and shoot; see:
>
> http://bp0.blogger.com/_KY5U-Bfa5cQ/Rvzx4uQYQQI/AAAAAAAAAjo/sYryNorAt...
>
> Gerry
But it's a different kind of photo altogether. In mine, the tones are
vital to the image. The bricks are essentially underexposed so that
the metal grate can be exposed without burning up. Mine is a low-key
sort of image, more about the tones and surfaces than the nature of
the subject matter.
dadiOH
Trust me, it's been done before. Low key too.