Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RSL on June 22, 2012, 07:19:53 pm
-
-
-
Russ, this is a delightfully curious image.
Almost like a cryptic crossword puzzle clue in photographic format.
Who knows what the answer is.
I will be fascinated to see what others think.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Shades of a pilgrim in a strange land to me.
Might the contrast be a little too cranked upo, I wonder?
-
You get points for originality on this one, Russ. But it looks over-sharpened to my eyes. And too much of the image falls within a very narrow tonal range.
-
This photograph is full of a bizarre contrasts:
- some guy going off to play hockey but it appears to be the middle of summer;
- breaking the rule of the subject moving into the photo by having this guy walking out of it;
- rule of thirds thrown out the window;
- too contrasty overall and over sharpened;
- an odd camera angle as if you are hanging out of a 5th storey window.
...but I like it!
-
Definitely breaks a lot of 'rules'. But I like it.
Mike.
-
Why is everybody so willing to slavishly follow rules?
-
Why is everybody so willing to slavishly follow rules?
It makes life more simple and saves personal effort or, to put it another way, it allows for a certain amount of credibility in images even if the content, at the end of the day, turns out to suck. As long as it looks superficially sweet and 'designed' then it's okay, it must have been intentional!
Perhaps a better question might have been: why do most of us really bother doing any of this? Isn't it just as rewarding to see without the feeling of obligation to record? Speaking as an ex-`pro, I think that my own answer to my question is simple: I wouldn't really know what the hell else to do with my life. It fills a huge hole - well, doesn't fill it at all, but the resulting indigestion can sometimes be believed to have been the result of clicking that machine. They have a saying here in Spain: mas que nada, which means better than nothing... yet, looking at the electricity bills that come in - and this is summer? - I wonder about the sustainability of running two computers much of the morning and most nights...
Rob C
-
Why is everybody so willing to slavishly follow rules?
I don't know anyone who slavishly follows rules. I know lots of people who love to say things like "rules are meant to be broken" or "the rules don't apply to me". Everyone loves to trash rules. Nothing wrong with that. Rules are meant to be broken. But you can't break a rule until you've followed one, at least for a little while. You can't run before you've learned to walk. Rules are meant to be broken, it's true. But that's not to say that rules are to be disrespected or ignored.
-
My wife and I were about to have lunch on the second-story deck at the Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center. We were ready to sit down at a table next to the railing when I saw this scene. I had my E-P1 in my hand, so I pointed its Summilux and shot before the guy got out of range. I had a variety of framing choices, and this one was deliberate.
You're probably right, Pop. I sharpened for the print I made and didn't bother to make a second version for the monitor, so it's a tad over-sharpened for the monitor. I used a high-structure (smooth) conversion in Silver Efex, which led to the high contrast Walter mentioned. As far as rules are concerned, yes, I broke a bunch of them, but at least I knew what they were.
Here's the original color version. I prefer the B&W, but opinions may vary. Thanks all for the positive comments. I sort of expected things to go the other way, but it was getting too quiet on LuLa.
-
Green is extremely hard to get right in B&W and I don't think it's done well in this instance. The colour version is better, still slightly boring. But I get the intent and I do like it. It's still essentially monochromatic and the textures and tonality work better.
-
... Isn't it just as rewarding to see without the feeling of obligation to record?...
Good question, Rob. Reminds me of a discussion I had with a mountaineering friend. He was telling me about the joy of being there, high up, alone, witnessing a magnificent vista, etc., and I responded by lamenting the fact that he does not carry a camera. He seemed genuinely bewildered by my suggestion. His explanation was that it is precisely the lack of recording (and inherent subsequent sharing of it) that makes the moment unique and transient, intimate and personal. Capturing it sounded to him like imprisoning it, sharing it like prostituting it. Something like a masstardization™ of beauty (my newly coined word: mass bastardization ;))
-
... Here's the original color version...
I like it more, Russ. Reminds me of Vincent Laforet's "NY from Above" series.
On a side note, your over-sharpened b&w indicates an inner struggle. I can imagine you walking around the house, repeating:
"I do not really need D800... I can just over sharpen my current files...
I do not really need D800... I can just over sharpen my current files...
I do not really need D800... I can just over sharpen my current files..."
;) :D ;D
-
I like it more, Russ. Reminds me of Vincent Laforet's "NY from Above" series.
On a side note, your over-sharpened b&w indicates an inner struggle. I can imagine you walking around the house, repeating:
"I do not really need D800... I can just over sharpen my current files...
I do not really need D800... I can just over sharpen my current files...
I do not really need D800... I can just over sharpen my current files..."
;) :D ;D
"It's too late...
It's too late...
It's far too late:
The hot damned order's in!
;-)
Rob C
-
Yes... a bit crunchy for the monitor... and for me it says what a lonely futile path golf is in the attainment of success.!!!
-
Good question, Rob. Reminds me of a discussion I had with a mountaineering friend. He was telling me about the joy of being there, high up, alone, witnessing a magnificent vista, etc., and I responded by lamenting the fact that he does not carry a camera. He seemed genuinely bewildered by my suggestion. His explanation was that it is precisely the lack of recording (and inherent subsequent sharing of it) that makes the moment unique and transient, intimate and personal. Capturing it sounded to him like imprisoning it, sharing it like prostituting it. Something like a masstardization™ of beauty (my newly coined word: mass bastardization ;))
I remember the best picture I have ever seen was one I did not photograph. I was driving to work in Salisbury (Wiltshire UK). As I topped Pepperbox hill, which is quite a few miles from Salisbury, I was confronted with a vista spread beneath me of early morning winter mist as far as the eye could see. There in the far distance was the spire of Salisbury Cathedral, the tallest in England, poking out from the mist. Nothing else showed above the mist except for a few hills in the distance. It was incredibly beautiful and yet I only had moments to see it before dropping down the hill in a stream of fast-moving traffic. It would not have been possible to stop. If I had turned back I would have been late for work, and in any case I had no camera. If I had a camera and had gone back I wouldn't have had a long enough lens because the spire was around six miles away.
This happened around 20 years ago, and I can still remember the scene vividly - I'm sure the reality if I had photographed it would not have had the same lasting appeal.
Jim
-
How to say this without seeming hopelessly presumptuous.
Many of my first conscious thoughts as a little shaver reflected the sheer fascination and love of the outdoors.
This love and fascination has persisted despite a career that seems to imprison me behind steel, glass, and concrete.
Nonetheless, my ambition still continues to be exploring the great wildernesses of this world - a task I am slowly achieving but with lots still to do.
I also have a great love of outdoor photography in its various forms.
But the photography itself is a latecomer although the fascination with photography also dates back to a very early age.
My desire to record at least some of what I witness in the great outdoors in no way cheapens the experience in my humble opinion or the personal enjoyment because a great photograph is merely the cherry on the top.
Even with a camera in hand I have wonderful memories of vistas and events where no noteworthy images resulted.
Perhaps this is a reflection of limited photographic skills, although there is no doubt of the improvement now.
As for the image itself it reflects much more than a scene or an event - the motivation and intent of the image-maker should shine through.
Very few skilled photographers are able to consistently produce noteworthy images in genres that do not interest them.
In fact the love and devotion for the subject matter is abundantly clear in the image and contributes to the significance of the image.
These images would not cheapen the moment in any way, rather the result would dignify a moment with great significance.
At least some of my ambition is to produce images that reflect the pleasure and joy I experienced at the time.
My regret is that I don't always succeed
Slobodan's reminiscence about his mountaineering friend would be valid for the friend but not necessarily for others.
BTW Slobodan is turning into a one man wordsmith - I daren't use the term - royalties would apply! :D
A humble contribution
Tony Jay
-
I had a similar experience to the Salisbury one on our first drive up though Andorra en route to France. We made a turn not long after we left the place, and there below us was the same thing visually, more or less, but the top of the clouds instead. I had a bag of cameras in the car, we did slow down and look, but the cameras never moved. I'm certain that I remember the incident because there are no photos.
I find that photographs of people do have value to me now, especially of those people lost and gone. Though one can remember places - possibly quite accurately - I find it isn't so with faces. I've got a honeymoon snap of my wife at Loch Tay on the website - I couldn't remember her ever having such short hair, but there is the evidence that she'd had it cut for the wedding! God alone knows why: it was one of her crowning glories, long; used to be like Veronica Lake's, yet later on, when she abandoned hairdressers, it would lie long and straight. How I wish I had snapped some more. I have next to nothing of the kids, either, except one of them having a drink together on holiday in Spain and another, shot at the end of a roll on the 'blad just before I went into the darkroom. It now sits on a table in the bedroom (the picture, not the 'blad - no idea where it's got to now); they have also changed so much...
Rob C
-
... I daren't use the term - royalties would apply! :D...
Fear not... just use the familiar synonym for masstardization™: democratization ;D
-
I have next to nothing of the kids, either, except one of them having a drink together on holiday in Spain and another, shot at the end of a roll on the 'blad just before I went into the darkroom.
If you have kids at home, pay attention to what Rob said. Shoot and shoot and shoot. Capture images of your kids while they're growing up. They'll be grown and out of the house before you can blink an eye, and the photographs will be priceless. I have pictures of my kids from the time they were tiny on, and on each kid's birthday I make a birthday card with one of those early pictures. I also have a bunch of comb-bound books filled with kid pictures, and a passworded web with a bunch of the pictures. My boys love the pictures, their kids love the pictures, and I've no doubt that once my great-grands get a little older they'll love the pictures too.
Here's one of my second son, who's been an attorney and very successful litigator for more about 25 years. Shot this one in 1955, It shows him practicing his cross-examination technique.
You can't go back later and get early pictures of your kids. Do it now!
-
I don't see that it's particularly rule-breaking, to be honest. It's formally quite nice, not necessarily *strict* but nice. It follows a variant of the rule of thirds that you see quite a lot in successful images, in which one corner of the imaginary tic-tac-toe board stands alone as an image.
It's very "street" to my eye, a fortuitous confluence of elements at an instant of time, but with front-to-back depth of focus. It's a "street" photo that's shot like a landscape. Is that rule-breaking?
Does the grass come out mottled in the print? The linear features in the grass are utterly critical to this, leading the eye to the figure, but the mottled overall appearance I find unfortunate. There needs to be some texture there, but it feels a little much here. I wish the figure had more detail. I'm not 100 percent happy with the mass lower right either, for reasons I cannot put my finger on, and possibly just because that's where the overcookedness is most visible. Anyways, when you're shooting "street" you gotta take what you've got, right?
Rule-breaking isn't just a question of "you have to know you're doing it" it's a question of doing so with care. If you're going to break one rule, you should follow others, comfort and guide the viewer, give the viewer some solid grounding in tropes they know and feel good about, and then give them the one broken rule. Then, break it for a reason: to emphasize a point, to create a feeling, to evoke.
Well done, as usual, Russ.
Andrew
-
...a little devil's advocate here. I am not really feeling this image.
I am always a bit suspicious of pieces that are titled "Untitled." Is the image so strong that it doesn't need a title, or does it lack a clear subject thus demanding the indeterminate titling. ( I am similarly suspicious about music that only gets a number too, but that is neither here nor there.) The black and white version is too dark for me. I have to visually search the image for meaning across a very dark and dour image.
The image lacks tonality despite the fact that the image was clearly taken in strong daylight conditions. This makes me wonder, why have you made me suffer through such a dark rendering of a daylight subject? If it were taken at night, the dark rendering would be congruent with the conditions and it would be more harmonious.
There is a lot of space spent on shapes and forms that don't seem to contribute to the main subject (guy walking across field). The trees on the right are a contrasty and indistinct as a framing device. The deep shadow on the left creates this area in the lower left that holds no information or significance to me.
I think a more aggressive cropping that focuses your attention more on the subject may make a stronger image. making a wider format crop where everything below the black shadow is removed might be better. I might even consider cropping from the middle of the shadow.
-
...one more thing on the crop. Here is what I see as the essence of this image. Now tell me why you want everything else in there.
-
I disagree with the tighter crops, completely. They're just pictures of a dude on a lawn.
This is a photo about large spaces, negative and positive (not negative? whatever). The dude is a focal point, a little reward for the patient viewer who is drawn in by the large graphical forms in balance around the frame. It's both "street" and landscape, both of which are about the entire frame and the objects and forms placed in it.
-
Thanks Andrew. No, the grass isn't mottled in the print. Most of the mottle in the B&W version comes from the conversion method I used. It doesn't hold up well on a computer monitor. Now that I've had the thing around for a while I've decided Slobodan's right. I like the Color version better. The B&W reminded me of a Cartier-Bresson picture of some people walking among trees, shot from a high angle. I've forgotten the title, and I don't want to take the time to go in to my library and check. It's not the same kind of picture, but the thrust is the same. Color changes the whole thing.
Marc, I'm afraid you miss the point of the picture. Both the trees and the shadows are essential. Your final crop is just some guy walking across a field. That's not really "the essence of the image." I don't explain pictures. It either stands on its own or it doesn't. Opinions always vary.
-
...one more thing on the crop. Here is what I see as the essence of this image. Now tell me why you want everything else in there.
Hell, you can crop even further, the essence is the hand of man, not grass (one blade is just like another, so all you really need is one).
And that is where D800 comes handy!
Now, the only remaining puzzle is why is such a militant anti-cropper falling for every cropper's wet dream? ;D
-
...
Marc, I'm afraid you miss the point of the picture. Both the trees and the shadows are essential. Your final crop is just some guy walking across a field. That's not really "the essence of the image." I don't explain pictures. It either stands on its own or it doesn't. Opinions always vary.
That's okay. I don't need to like everything I see.
When people say that the image "either stands on its own or it doesn't." I always wonder if people say that because they don't have anything to say. I know that makes me sound like a total jackass, but if you don't want to explain or talk about an image, why put it online or in the user critiques forum? If the only feedback you get is positive and you don't ever engage constructively with an alternate viewpoint, then you won't be learning anything from the critique forum.
Who knows, maybe I could also learn something if you could help me understand why you think all that stuff belongs in the image. Maybe I could understand your vision better. Right now I don't get it.
...as for the tight crop I posted. I did not mean to say that the very tight crop was a better image. I put it their for discussion purposes: I wanted you to explain why all the other parts that you wanted to include in the image made it better. But as you say, you don't explain your work.
-
Now, the only remaining puzzle is why is such a militant anti-cropper falling for every cropper's wet dream? ;D
You lost me there, Slobodan. As far as I'm concerned this picture is uncroppable.
-
Right now I don't get it.
8)
-
D800 = every cropper's wet dream.
In other words, why would someone who has no intention on cropping go for D800? The other reason would be huge enlargements, e.g., handy in landscape, architecture, fashion, etc. photography. But street? I've rarely, if ever, seen street photography enlarged beyond, say 16x20.
-
Haven't you heard? His next book will be Penny Arcade 1:1 in a limited edition of 50 copies, signed forklift included.
-
D800 = every cropper's wet dream.
In other words, why would someone who has no intention on cropping go for D800? The other reason would be huge enlargements, e.g., handy in landscape, architecture, fashion, etc. photography. But street? I've rarely, if ever, seen street photography enlarged beyond, say 16x20.
Okay. Got it. But I'm gradually branching out into landscape. The other thing I've done for decades is what I'll call "wabi sabi," things made beautiful by age and use. If the fire ever gets under control, the temperature drops below 98, the smoke level goes down, and the highway west opens up again, I'll take my D800E back up into the hills and do some more stuff like this, but closer up -- that is, if B&H ever ships the camera. There also may be some interesting, if depressing, vistas left by the fires -- the kind of thing Josef Koudelka used to do so well. I crop if I have to, Slobodan, but I won't be any more likely to crop with a D800E than I am with a D3 or an E-P1. I don't bang away hoping to find a picture once the file's on my computer. I frame in the viewfinder.
Have you seen anything yet out of the D800 or D800E? You don't have to print wall-size to see the incredible detail, color, and dynamic range that's there.