Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RSL on November 13, 2012, 11:06:55 am

Title: Atelier
Post by: RSL on November 13, 2012, 11:06:55 am
-
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: jeremypayne on November 13, 2012, 11:18:10 am
-

Who cares about two strangers painting on the sidewalk?  Why is that interesting and a cool rock isn't?

I think you need to dial-down the philosophical critique of landscape photography as the same could be said about dirty hippies sitting on chairs and middle-aged women standing on the sidewalk.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: WalterEG on November 13, 2012, 09:59:04 pm
Given the angle of engagement, one could be excused for thinking that the painting is of an elder statesman with a D800E in his hand.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: marvpelkey on November 13, 2012, 11:24:47 pm
I think you have caught the intense concentration and interaction of the two subjects rather well. However, I find the person to the rear and left of the female too distracting due to the lack of separation from her (in fact, one of my first thoughts was wondering what that person was doing rather than the main parties). Although I'm sure it may not have been possible, it would have been nice to see the photo taken from a few steps to your right. That may have separated the two a bit as well as move that distracting light toned line coming out of the top of his head. Once I noticed it, I found it difficult to disregard (perhaps some judicious use of the dodge/burn tool would solve that).

Marv
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: michswiss on November 14, 2012, 03:38:54 am
The real missed opportunity here lay in the title of the shot.

It's a workshop, instruction, a group of enthusiasts learning from a master.  The shot contains hints of this with the woman on the right of the frame with her easel barely caught and the third woman in the left background working on her composition.

A much wider lens, deeper dof and closer to the first group bringing all three (or more?) painters into the composition might have worked.  I can't imagine you didn't have time to explore this setting in more detail to work out a better shot.

You could have tried charming the socks of the ladies if the gentleman was a little brusk. Or better yet, told them you represented "Canvas and Oils", the preeminent publication of the Arts for the sunshine folks the world over.

Just curious, were they painting Street?
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: kencameron on November 14, 2012, 04:12:50 am
To me everything but the central couple is distraction and the central couple are well worth a shot just for themselves, with a bit of an erotic sub-text implied there.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: seamus finn on November 14, 2012, 05:41:24 am
Quote
To me everything but the central couple is distraction  - the central couple are well worth a shot just for themselves, with a bit of an erotic sub-text implied there.



I think that's the nub of it, Russ. The couple are the story - I'd rather not know they're part of a group. It spoils the chemistry. I realise you don't crop but for the sake of the exercise, move in tight on the couple - I think it's a stronger and more intriguing picture? Perhaps you did that and have more up your sleeve!
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: stamper on November 14, 2012, 07:11:19 am
I think that I am the odd one out here? I can understand the criticisms that the others have noted but despite that I think the image still works. The two people in the background set the scene. As to DOF then the person on the right isn't far away enough for any separation to be effective. I think this is one of your better ones Russ. :)
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: michswiss on November 14, 2012, 08:41:14 am
I think that I am the odd one out here? I can understand the criticisms that the others have noted but despite that I think the image still works. The two people in the background set the scene. As to DOF then the person on the right isn't far away enough for any separation to be effective. I think this is one of your better ones Russ. :)

To be clear, I don't think this shot works. But the setting leads me to think there were several opportunities to get one that might have.

Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: RSL on November 14, 2012, 10:47:57 am
How's this? Any better?

Thanks all but one for some first class critiques. Ken caught the main problem, and others made the same point.

Jenn, The title was tongue-in-cheek, but I probably should have used one of those wretched "emoticons" to make that clear. But you seem to have the idea I could hang around, change lenses, walk around the edges and find the best point of view while these two turned to salt. In fact, I was walking by in the street, saw the gal start to point and give instructions, cranked the lens all the way out and raised the camera while I was still walking. The woman looked up and saw me, but she was intent on what she was telling her student. She looked back down just for a second. I paused for one step, shot, and walked on. Come on, you're not like BD, who hasn't a clue how street shots are made. You do good street work yourself and you know perfectly well how long you usually have to make a shot. I don't "charm" folks. I shoot pictures of them. (I do smile a lot.)

In the end, I think I agree with Stamper. The disheveled surroundings give the people a sense of place, but I also think the couple alone is worth the trouble to crop to them. Everybody who commented on the bright streak on the tree above the guy's head was right. I should have caught that. 

But now I'll have to find a photographic priest and confess that I cropped. Mea culpa.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: WalterEG on November 14, 2012, 12:02:30 pm
The crop saves the shot.  The chap's intensity in response to the urgings of the tutor makes the shot.

I like it.

Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: seamus finn on November 14, 2012, 01:19:08 pm


Much better and no clutter. You're forgiven. I asked a priest for you.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: amolitor on November 14, 2012, 03:49:26 pm
I think the third person in the grouping, the person on the right of the frame behind the couple painting makes this one work.

Is this an attempt at street, or is it a picture of two people painting? I think both photographs are present in the original frame, and I am not entirely certain which one is better. I think I like the first one better, there's more to look at and discover. It rewards the viewer for spending time rather more, which is a feature I enjoy in a photograph.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: RSL on November 14, 2012, 04:14:55 pm

Much better and no clutter. You're forgiven. I asked a priest for you.

Thanks, Seamus. I'll have to say a few "I will not crops" and "hail HCBs" in atonement.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: RSL on November 14, 2012, 04:32:56 pm
I think the third person in the grouping, the person on the right of the frame behind the couple painting makes this one work.

Is this an attempt at street, or is it a picture of two people painting? I think both photographs are present in the original frame, and I am not entirely certain which one is better. I think I like the first one better, there's more to look at and discover. It rewards the viewer for spending time rather more, which is a feature I enjoy in a photograph.

I tend to agree with your first statement, Andrew. But it wasn't really an attempt at anything in particular. As I told Jennifer, I was walking by with a camera over my shoulder, I saw something come together, and I shot. I'd probably classify the uncropped original as street, though it doesn't have the ambiguity I'd expect to see in good street.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: kencameron on November 14, 2012, 05:20:09 pm
I think both photographs are present in the original frame
Yes indeed - and that is so often the case with this kind of exposure - more than one possible interesting output. It must take great strength of character - or great obstinacy  ;) - to stick even in part to a "no cropping" ordinance.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: seamus finn on November 14, 2012, 05:44:56 pm
Russ, the more I look at the second version, the more one-dimensional it becomes. I've taken a great liberty and tried this along the lines suggested by Andrew above - I think he may be right.  I think the second lady adds depth and ambiguity - more like street.

Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: michswiss on November 14, 2012, 05:48:22 pm
The crop weakens the shot.

Yes, I very well know that changing a lens takes time and it risks loosing an opportunity. But in this case, the scene itself was likely relatively static and there was a lot more to be gained by taking the time to look at other aspects.  So I'll stand by my comment earlier in that this is a banal image in a setting that could have produced more.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: Bruce Cox on November 14, 2012, 06:37:27 pm
I think the bag on the tripod keeps their feet form working as well as they might.

Bruce
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: louoates on November 14, 2012, 07:24:31 pm
I think the bag on the tripod keeps their feet form working as well as they might.

Bruce

I think Bruce's crop works best, all things considered.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: RSL on November 14, 2012, 07:28:35 pm
The crop weakens the shot.

Yes, I very well know that changing a lens takes time and it risks loosing an opportunity. But in this case, the scene itself was likely relatively static and there was a lot more to be gained by taking the time to look at other aspects.  So I'll stand by my comment earlier in that this is a banal image in a setting that could have produced more.

Hi Jenn, I agree that the crop weakens the shot. , and, for the first time I can remember I don't agree with Seamus's crop. I think the best version is the first, uncropped one -- minus the bright stripe on the tree behind the guy's head.

But you sound like BD now. I remember when he explained all the various positions I could have taken in order to improve a shot that existed for probably not more than two seconds -- at the outside. You sound as if it would be possible to get out my tripod and cable release, arrange the people, and make a shot. Believe me, the situation produced one shot, and I was lucky even then. Things held together for less than a second. After I lowered my camera and passed the hotel yard where this was taking place the scene dissolved for good, as most good scenes will. I could tell that the woman wasn't especially happy to have her workshop photographed.

I think calling the image banal is going pretty far, but I certainly don't consider it one of my better street shots. I hope I can get over the St. Augustine in the near future and do better.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: michswiss on November 15, 2012, 12:22:34 am

But you sound like BD now...


Thanks for the compliment!  ;D
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: WalterEG on November 15, 2012, 03:30:27 am
Who or what is BD?  I feel I am missing something.

Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: stamper on November 15, 2012, 04:30:13 am
If I hadn't seen the first image then I would have thought the second was "fine". Normally I dislike clutter which means that I am a fan of cropping and on the odd occasion cloning. The elements  -imo - in the background are harmonious to the subject and not clutter, therefore they are part of the overall scene. The image works well in both versions but I prefer the first because there is more of a story.  :)
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: stamper on November 15, 2012, 04:31:16 am
Who or what is BD?  I feel I am missing something.



Bad Dude?  ;)
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: michswiss on November 15, 2012, 05:18:41 am
Here's a link to a bio (http://www.extension.harvard.edu/about-us/faculty-directory/b-d-colen) for B.D. Colen.  Suffice it to say, he's able to get under Russ's skin.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: seamus finn on November 15, 2012, 05:31:47 am
So, cropping isn't all bad, huh!
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: WalterEG on November 15, 2012, 06:28:47 am
Suffice it to say, he's able to get under Russ's skin.

Oh, so he is not a solitary soul then, Jen?

Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: stamper on November 15, 2012, 06:32:14 am
So, cropping isn't all bad, huh!

Unquote

Of course not! You should have an open mind as to it's merits. I quite often shoot wider than a "good" composition suggests knowing I might want to crop later especially if there is perspective issues you may have to deal with later in Photoshop. I once put an image into a camera club competition that I had framed tight. The judge explained that framed looser would have made the image better and why. Being flexible is best?
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: WalterEG on November 15, 2012, 06:39:16 am
The judge explained that framed looser would have made the image better and why. Being flexible is best?

Ain't that the troof Stamper,

One to crochet into your pillow slip.

Cheers,

Walter
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: petermfiore on November 15, 2012, 07:11:08 am

 The judge explained that framed looser would have made the image better and why. Being flexible is best?
[/quote]

Another truth, "You can't mine gold where it isn't".


Peter
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: amolitor on November 15, 2012, 07:29:22 am
Cropping it to just the group of three does make it more "street" but it becomes bad street! There's a *little* more interest there, but not enough.

The tight crop on just the two is a completely different photograph, and as I mull it, I like it better. There's an interesting dynamic there, I feel like one is a teacher and the other a student, but I don't know which one. This is also present in the larger photo, of course, but the larger photo has more stuff, and another easel in the background and so on.

The original crop is, to my eye, definitely street. Russ is right that it's lacking some stuff to be really good street, but I like it pretty well. If it was mine, I might print it and hang it where I can see it for a while. I think it's a photograph that might take me a year to see that it's excellent or awful, but I feel like after a year I'd know one way or the other ;)
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: seamus finn on November 15, 2012, 08:47:56 am
Quote
So, cropping isn't all bad, huh!

Unquote

Of course not! You should have an open mind as to it's merits. I quite often shoot wider than a "good" composition suggests knowing I might want to crop later especially if there is perspective issues you may have to deal with later in Photoshop. I once put an image into a camera club competition that I had framed tight. The judge explained that framed looser would have made the image better and why. Being flexible is best?

Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against cropping, but some are pathologically against it. 
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: Chris Calohan on November 15, 2012, 10:01:08 am
This is an image I only gave a passing glance to when first viewed. Sometimes Russ's images catch my eye and give cause for long perusals, but like anyone's work, sometimes I just give it the old, ho-hum and move to the next image in the thread. It was just today when I gave his edit and some of the others more interest and wondered if in the cropping, it wasn't the figure to the right that was as bothersome as omitting the figure in the back. This figure, while quite OOF still gives context to the scene, doesn't detract from the primary focus point and omits the figure to the right. A little crop, a little cloning, 16:9 vertical crop.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8207/8188330086_5eb2730063_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 15, 2012, 10:11:24 am
... I think it's a photograph that might take me a year to see that it's excellent or awful...

Luckily, given that I already spent 40 years looking at photographs, I really wouldn't have to waste another one on this one ;)
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: Chris Calohan on November 15, 2012, 10:22:32 am
One of the things I had to do with students, espcially the younger ones was find something positive to build on. Sometimes it was ..hmmm, dare I say a challenge. Today in my unlearning/relearning process, I have the same luxury as you, Slobodan but I still find myself studying other's works to find that extra something in the shot that I didn't see before. Russ would be the first to admit the shot is okay but not great but had enough interest to catch his eye and do some exploration...it's all good in the end.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: jeremypayne on November 15, 2012, 10:42:39 am
Russ would be the first to admit the shot is okay but not great but had enough interest to catch his eye and do some exploration...it's all good in the end.

But ... I still don't get why this is interesting ... two perfect strangers standing on sidewalk.  So what?

This is faaaaaar more boring and banal to me than most of the shots that Russ criticizes out-of-hand of "rocks and trees".

Why would you want to capture THIS moment and bring it home with you?  You would put this on your wall?  Why?
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: amolitor on November 15, 2012, 10:52:50 am
Slobodan, I'd be doing other things during that year, and also time spent looking at photos, like time spent playing the piano, is never wasted.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: RSL on November 15, 2012, 11:10:12 am
Luckily, given that I already spent 40 years looking at photographs, I really wouldn't have to waste another one on this one ;)

Don't despair Slobodan, your critical faculties will improve as you continue to look at them for the next thirty years. I can guarantee that from 70 years of looking at them and shooting them.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: RSL on November 15, 2012, 11:11:51 am
Bad Dude?  ;)

Not at all, Stamper. He's a good journalist, but I won't comment on his photographs. You can go to his web to make your own decision about that.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: RSL on November 15, 2012, 11:20:17 am
So, cropping isn't all bad, huh!

Actually Seamus, accusations to the contrary notwithstanding, I've never said it is all bad. However:

"If you start cutting or cropping a good photograph, it means death to the geometrically correct interplay of proportions. Besides, it very rarely happens that a photograph which was feebly composed can be saved by reconstruction of its composition under the darkroom’s enlarger; the integrity of vision is no longer there." Henri Cartier-Bresson

I agree with Henri on that one. But note the operative word, "good." Also note the word, "rarely." Within those limits I think cropping is just fine.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: nemo295 on November 15, 2012, 05:38:10 pm
Cropping isn't either good or bad. It is what it is. The only thing that matters is the final outcome.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: kencameron on November 15, 2012, 07:05:30 pm
"If you start cutting or cropping a good photograph, it means death to the geometrically correct interplay of proportions. Besides, it very rarely happens that a photograph which was feebly composed can be saved by reconstruction of its composition under the darkroom’s enlarger; the integrity of vision is no longer there." Henri Cartier-Bresson
Interesting quote. Hard to disagree with the first sentence, since he is simply saying that if a photograph is perfectly composed in camera you won't improve it later. I find the second less persuasive as a generalisation, although of course entirely deserving of respect as an account of Cartier-Bresson's practice. Enlargers offered less, or less accessible, scope for creative play with an image than software, and I don't see why it isn't be possible to create a "geometrically correct interplay of proportions", or several of them, on screen, where none is present in the original. As for "integrity of vision", I don't see why it might not come into play while working on an image as well as when you press the button. In the end surely there are different ways of "doing photography", and only the result matters, although every photographer will have, and be attached to, his or her own distinctive approach.
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: RSL on November 15, 2012, 07:40:28 pm
Hi Ken,

Of course the idea is to "perfectly" compose on the camera, and HCB pretty much had reached a point where he could do that. On the other hand, since he insisted his pictures be printed with their black borders showing, sometimes interspersed with sprocket holes, I often wonder how many almost perfect pictures he had to toss in order to keep up that practice. We all know you can't always fit what you're after into the aspect ratio of, say, a 35mm camera or a 4 x 5 camera or a four-thirds camera. As long as you can visualize the final product when you trip the shutter, I'd hardly call chopping off what was outside your visualization a "crop."

Yes, the result is what matters, but it seems to me that people who are able to compose on the camera get by far the best results. Those who go out and bang away, hoping to find something worthwhile once they get the stuff on a monitor and start cropping rarely get anything worthwhile. Another thing that strikes me is how often a cropper who knows his photography, after screwing around with various crops, comes back to the original, uncropped, version as the best rendition. If you know what you're doing, what you saw when you tripped the shutter almost always is what you really wanted.

Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: nemo295 on November 15, 2012, 07:43:50 pm
I often wonder how many almost perfect pictures he had to toss in order to keep up that practice.


“Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst.”

― Henri Cartier-Bresson
Title: Re: Atelier
Post by: kencameron on November 15, 2012, 08:29:27 pm
Those who go out and bang away, hoping to find something worthwhile once they get the stuff on a monitor and start cropping rarely get anything worthwhile.
Mmmm. Sounds plausible - but how would you know? I also think most photographers occupy the extensive middle ground between only composing in camera and "going out and banging away". But how would I know? :)