mgilvey
RF Newby, Photog Oldy
This note was written before you posted your updated photo.
NEAL WROTE: "Having said all of that - and having seen your improvement on my efforts - I still have a bit of a dilemma about which I actually prefer. I can see merits in both, and an appeal in both (albeit for different reasons). There is an awful lot of detail in the neg, and I have always shied away from not reproducing what is there, as it is. Maybe this is holding me back as an art photographer? From your excellent work above, I'm warming toward the first one as art."
Well, here then lies the problem yes? Which one do you feel you "have to" like best? Don't answer that...instead, can't you like both? Why not? Imagine for a minute that you were going to hang this image in two different rooms. One room is very open space and a lot of ambient light comes in. Which image would look best? Now lets say you have another room that has those little manicured trees you see in Greek garden designs, now which image works best in this room. Both do not work in both rooms but each does work in one room, very strongly...does that make one better than the other? No.
How would this effect your previsualization knowing that it is possible to change the mood of one image to work in a number of places. Is there a short answer to this, yes, bracket and maybe change the point of view several times so you have a picture that will fit many different ideas, but I think it becomes more spiritual once you start trying to figure out what emotion you want people to come away with after looking at your image and this is what I'm trying to previsualize when the shutter is clicked. This is what will help you decide how to expose the film or chip when you are at the location.
I think this is where Ansel Adams had an advantage shooting a view camera. We take our 35mm's and just shoot away from one second to the next, we don't take the time to figure out just what we want the final image to look like in the end...or maybe it's just me. Jeff Curto (camerapostion.com podcast) and Brooks Jenson (lenswork.com podcast) have both explained that when using a large format camera, there is a certain amount of seriousness about it that causes onlookers to associate more importance with what the photographers doing. Likewise, there is a certain amount of serious thinking that must go into the photo before the shutter is released on the photographers part. I think that just by mentioning this, I will try to slow down more like I used to do when I had an assignment.
To answer your question, just because you didn't print ALL of the information on the negative does not mean that if you did print it all that it would not also be art. Looking at my second version, doesn't the way the shading envoke a feeling or does it just look like an execution of placing all the information that was on the negative onto the print (screen in this case). For me, I get a feeling...even a story that tells my eye to follow a stone pathway that leads to an airy soft illuminated room that leads me to a garden and there ends the story—it envokes curiosity.
The first version also does this but in this case, the etherial presence of the bright area envoke curiosity and that feeling of being bathed in warm soft ambient light (don't you dare ask me what that feels like, ha, ha ;-) but the curiosity continues because I will never know what is inside that mystical illumination.
Can't they both be art?
I think the second version is certainly closer to the "nonart" idea though. Maybe, in our efforts to make art of our work we should ask, what could we do to NOT make it look like art? Poor printing or exposure, certainly but beyond that, what kind of intent in the printing would cause it to not look like art. Perhaps knowing that will also tell us what to do to make it art.
I wonder, if this were a perfectly balanced photo, i.e. indoor and outdoor exposures were right in the right zones, would it loose it's art feeling? Interest idea. I ask that because as HDR in digital photography becomes more popular and people are able to do what the zone system has long been doing for years, at what point is it just a well exposed document of a scene and when is it art.
This stuff can make your head spin as mine is right now or maybe its the fact that I'm sitting in my unheated Jeep in the middle of a freezing parking lot while eating my lunch. Kind of surreal to hear what I just wrote given where I was when I wrote it.
NEAL WROTE: "Having said all of that - and having seen your improvement on my efforts - I still have a bit of a dilemma about which I actually prefer. I can see merits in both, and an appeal in both (albeit for different reasons). There is an awful lot of detail in the neg, and I have always shied away from not reproducing what is there, as it is. Maybe this is holding me back as an art photographer? From your excellent work above, I'm warming toward the first one as art."
Well, here then lies the problem yes? Which one do you feel you "have to" like best? Don't answer that...instead, can't you like both? Why not? Imagine for a minute that you were going to hang this image in two different rooms. One room is very open space and a lot of ambient light comes in. Which image would look best? Now lets say you have another room that has those little manicured trees you see in Greek garden designs, now which image works best in this room. Both do not work in both rooms but each does work in one room, very strongly...does that make one better than the other? No.
How would this effect your previsualization knowing that it is possible to change the mood of one image to work in a number of places. Is there a short answer to this, yes, bracket and maybe change the point of view several times so you have a picture that will fit many different ideas, but I think it becomes more spiritual once you start trying to figure out what emotion you want people to come away with after looking at your image and this is what I'm trying to previsualize when the shutter is clicked. This is what will help you decide how to expose the film or chip when you are at the location.
I think this is where Ansel Adams had an advantage shooting a view camera. We take our 35mm's and just shoot away from one second to the next, we don't take the time to figure out just what we want the final image to look like in the end...or maybe it's just me. Jeff Curto (camerapostion.com podcast) and Brooks Jenson (lenswork.com podcast) have both explained that when using a large format camera, there is a certain amount of seriousness about it that causes onlookers to associate more importance with what the photographers doing. Likewise, there is a certain amount of serious thinking that must go into the photo before the shutter is released on the photographers part. I think that just by mentioning this, I will try to slow down more like I used to do when I had an assignment.
To answer your question, just because you didn't print ALL of the information on the negative does not mean that if you did print it all that it would not also be art. Looking at my second version, doesn't the way the shading envoke a feeling or does it just look like an execution of placing all the information that was on the negative onto the print (screen in this case). For me, I get a feeling...even a story that tells my eye to follow a stone pathway that leads to an airy soft illuminated room that leads me to a garden and there ends the story—it envokes curiosity.
The first version also does this but in this case, the etherial presence of the bright area envoke curiosity and that feeling of being bathed in warm soft ambient light (don't you dare ask me what that feels like, ha, ha ;-) but the curiosity continues because I will never know what is inside that mystical illumination.
Can't they both be art?
I think the second version is certainly closer to the "nonart" idea though. Maybe, in our efforts to make art of our work we should ask, what could we do to NOT make it look like art? Poor printing or exposure, certainly but beyond that, what kind of intent in the printing would cause it to not look like art. Perhaps knowing that will also tell us what to do to make it art.
I wonder, if this were a perfectly balanced photo, i.e. indoor and outdoor exposures were right in the right zones, would it loose it's art feeling? Interest idea. I ask that because as HDR in digital photography becomes more popular and people are able to do what the zone system has long been doing for years, at what point is it just a well exposed document of a scene and when is it art.
This stuff can make your head spin as mine is right now or maybe its the fact that I'm sitting in my unheated Jeep in the middle of a freezing parking lot while eating my lunch. Kind of surreal to hear what I just wrote given where I was when I wrote it.
mgilvey
RF Newby, Photog Oldy
EmilGil, you're next!
Last edited:
mgilvey
RF Newby, Photog Oldy
EmilGil, you're next! Ha Ha!
The reason I selected your photo is because like Neal's photo, it also says "What if". I like this image very much because the triangle my eye makes going from the man to the leftmost light post, up to the PIZZERIA sign and back down to the man. The verticals are straight as well. I felt it could use a few enhancements though.
Here you can see I cropped out the top and very bottom of the image, I thought they detracted from the attention that the front of the building wanted. I also lightened some of the plants behind the man to separate him a little from that area. Other things I did were to darken the black point a little, it looks like you had it set for hardcopy printing instead of on-screen and the last thing I did was look for something that would be white or in the 1/4 tone range because apart from the bright section of wall on the right (which I toned down) there didn't appear to be any real white point.
The splotches on the face of the building are very interesting and I have not doubt that is partly why you chose to photograph this building. They add a lot of character to the photo so I made a mask for them and punched up the level of lightness on them a tiny bit. Oh, did anyone miss the light that was reflecting in the window...I don't miss it. I told you I remove things that don't work.
I would not like the photo as much if there was no reflection of the man in the window...I almost wish you had clicked the shutter just a little earlier so his head in the reflection was not touching the dark left edge. And here is where my discussion begins.
I am under the assumption that most of, if not all of the photos displayed on this website were taken with a rangefinder and not an SLR with a motor drive. Knowing this, it becomes even more important to have good previsualization. Take this image for example. You don't have to answer these questions, they are more like me just thinking out loud. How many photos of this do you have? Are there more on the contact sheet the perhaps were not as good or was this a grab shot you did on your way to some other location or just wandering around the town?
How long did you wait for someone to walk in front of the window before you took the photo? Did you know you wanted to capture that or was it just become a happy surprise? Did you think about what this image would have looked like of someone would have been leaning in the doorway, standing still while people on the sidewalk passed by in a blur?
How does having people in the image change the mood as oppose to there not being anyone in it? What if you only suggested people for example, "What if" instead of the man in the photo, what if you only caught just his back and leg walking out of the photo? You would still have the beautiful face of the building but then, just a subtle hint of mystery with the mans leg exiting thereby adding a human element but still keeping the front of the restaurant the subject. How much of the man do we really have to see to make a statement about the restaurant or that people were not going into it? Is his face really important? I think not, in fact, I think in this image, seeing his face makes me want to know more about him and not the face of the building.
Knowing this, would you have waited longer for someone to appear in the doorway? Would you have waited for the man to walk out of the photo? I could be wrong, you might still have these images on your negatives or it may not have been your intention to have the face of the building to be the subject, maybe it was the man. I wanted to present this idea for those reading this critique so they will ask themselves these questions before clicking the shutter. If you are shooting with a rangefinder, you have to think about these things because you only get one chance to catch it but... at least you can wait around for it to happen again.
I leave you with a HCB version just for fun.
The reason I selected your photo is because like Neal's photo, it also says "What if". I like this image very much because the triangle my eye makes going from the man to the leftmost light post, up to the PIZZERIA sign and back down to the man. The verticals are straight as well. I felt it could use a few enhancements though.
Here you can see I cropped out the top and very bottom of the image, I thought they detracted from the attention that the front of the building wanted. I also lightened some of the plants behind the man to separate him a little from that area. Other things I did were to darken the black point a little, it looks like you had it set for hardcopy printing instead of on-screen and the last thing I did was look for something that would be white or in the 1/4 tone range because apart from the bright section of wall on the right (which I toned down) there didn't appear to be any real white point.
The splotches on the face of the building are very interesting and I have not doubt that is partly why you chose to photograph this building. They add a lot of character to the photo so I made a mask for them and punched up the level of lightness on them a tiny bit. Oh, did anyone miss the light that was reflecting in the window...I don't miss it. I told you I remove things that don't work.
I would not like the photo as much if there was no reflection of the man in the window...I almost wish you had clicked the shutter just a little earlier so his head in the reflection was not touching the dark left edge. And here is where my discussion begins.
I am under the assumption that most of, if not all of the photos displayed on this website were taken with a rangefinder and not an SLR with a motor drive. Knowing this, it becomes even more important to have good previsualization. Take this image for example. You don't have to answer these questions, they are more like me just thinking out loud. How many photos of this do you have? Are there more on the contact sheet the perhaps were not as good or was this a grab shot you did on your way to some other location or just wandering around the town?
How long did you wait for someone to walk in front of the window before you took the photo? Did you know you wanted to capture that or was it just become a happy surprise? Did you think about what this image would have looked like of someone would have been leaning in the doorway, standing still while people on the sidewalk passed by in a blur?
How does having people in the image change the mood as oppose to there not being anyone in it? What if you only suggested people for example, "What if" instead of the man in the photo, what if you only caught just his back and leg walking out of the photo? You would still have the beautiful face of the building but then, just a subtle hint of mystery with the mans leg exiting thereby adding a human element but still keeping the front of the restaurant the subject. How much of the man do we really have to see to make a statement about the restaurant or that people were not going into it? Is his face really important? I think not, in fact, I think in this image, seeing his face makes me want to know more about him and not the face of the building.
Knowing this, would you have waited longer for someone to appear in the doorway? Would you have waited for the man to walk out of the photo? I could be wrong, you might still have these images on your negatives or it may not have been your intention to have the face of the building to be the subject, maybe it was the man. I wanted to present this idea for those reading this critique so they will ask themselves these questions before clicking the shutter. If you are shooting with a rangefinder, you have to think about these things because you only get one chance to catch it but... at least you can wait around for it to happen again.
I leave you with a HCB version just for fun.
mgilvey
RF Newby, Photog Oldy
Looks like I forgot to turn off one of my curves on the flowers. Also could have done a better job on the retouching around the small window near the sidewalk. Oh well, I'm tired and I'm going night-night.
Bon nuit!
Bon nuit!
john neal
fallor ergo sum
mgilvey said:
Yes, that's possible, and I do. I guess I'm used to thinking that a "straight" print is a record shot, and not art per se. However, if the photographer is good enough, the art comes from the act of composition, so I take your point
mgilvey said:
Point taken - if only I had the skill in choosing the composition at the point of exposure....
mgilvey said:
Time is the most valuable commodity - I tend to work at extremes - either I walk around banging off shots as I see them without too much thought. Alternatively, I spend ages looking for the best angle - not sure that always works either, as it is easy to fall into analysis paralysis. Generally though, I would agree, more time taken in planning a shot will make a big difference.
mgilvey said:
Oh yes - I'm getting he message, but as above, I need an art implant
mgilvey said:
I think that it would lose a lot of attraction if it were perfect all over - it would then be a true "record" shot, that could be seen as rather boring. I think you have a valid point about digital - a lot of digital output is completely soullless (sadly).
mgilvey said:
Mine was spinning half way down your first post
I'm going to try to think this into my future work - not in a mechanistic way, but by making sure I spend enough time considering composition pre and post production visualisation, etc. having said that, if it is a real-time response shot that is needed, I will just be pressing the tit and hoping!My sincere thanks for your input and suggestions, I think I have learned some valuable stuff along the way and will be trying again. Incidentally, I love the HCB treatment of Emil's shot - pure fun!
mgilvey
RF Newby, Photog Oldy
Just by critiqueing and breaking things down, I learn more as well. Glad I could help.
raid
Dad Photographer
mgilvey said:
Even though you did not crtiique my image [
], I learn from what you have said about the the two other images. Thank you for taking the time to constribute such a deep and insightful guest-critique.
Monz
Monz
Thanks mgilvey for your comments and efforts. You are very skillful at re-touching, especially considering the small files you had to work with. Thanks also to our other guest, jbf, for his comments.
Isn't this the point where participants say something about their image and reply to comments?
--
Monz
Isn't this the point where participants say something about their image and reply to comments?
--
Monz
raid
Dad Photographer
Monz,
Yes, this is the right time. I will tonight write something.
Yes, this is the right time. I will tonight write something.
raid
Dad Photographer
Thanks to all of you for this very enjoyful and interesting thread.
I chose my photo for this thread because I like the reflection in my wife's sunglasses. I also like the vintage look that I view that way. Else, it was a snapshot in the street.
I have always viewed critique sessions as the best place to post images that are "not obvious". It is often a matter of opinion what is liked and not liked. The clear aspect is the photography side and not the liking and disliking side to what is said. Obviously, my image here is not a unique image.
Thank you for your honest and constructive critique.
I chose my photo for this thread because I like the reflection in my wife's sunglasses. I also like the vintage look that I view that way. Else, it was a snapshot in the street.
I have always viewed critique sessions as the best place to post images that are "not obvious". It is often a matter of opinion what is liked and not liked. The clear aspect is the photography side and not the liking and disliking side to what is said. Obviously, my image here is not a unique image.
Thank you for your honest and constructive critique.
formal
***
Thanks for the comments.
I'm not fanatical about it, but I'm try not to crop images. Therefore, I leave in half face etc. at the edge. I do, however, agree that the 1/4 face of the policeman is far from ideal.
David
I'm not fanatical about it, but I'm try not to crop images. Therefore, I leave in half face etc. at the edge. I do, however, agree that the 1/4 face of the policeman is far from ideal.
David
Monz
Monz
Thanks for the kind comments on my photo. Here is the story behind it...
I was invited to a house-warming party and naturally took my camera with me. There were half a dozen children in the house. After lunch, I could hear some 'musical noise' coming from upstairs. I went to investigate and when I opened the door of the room where the noise was emanating from, I was greeted by the sight of these three young children engaged in an impromptu jamming session. The room was still sparsely furnished (note the mattress on the floor, no bed yet). The walls were covered in a white/cream wallpaper and there was nice mid-afternoon light streaming in from a solitary window. I just smiled and told the kids to carry on. I had the 35mm Biogon attached to the Leica M6 already and once they had gotten used to me being there, I took several shots. They were un-posed. I used the M6's built-in light meter and metered for the floor (I think).
After scanning the negative (3200dpi, Epson F-3200), I cropped the image slightly and did some minor Photoshopping (levels, curves, spotting, unsharp mask, border).
@Formal: I thought about cloning out the socket on the wall but decided against it because it looked fairly unobtrusive to me.
This is my favourite shot of the session. Who says 'never work with children'?!
All the best.
--
Monz
I was invited to a house-warming party and naturally took my camera with me. There were half a dozen children in the house. After lunch, I could hear some 'musical noise' coming from upstairs. I went to investigate and when I opened the door of the room where the noise was emanating from, I was greeted by the sight of these three young children engaged in an impromptu jamming session. The room was still sparsely furnished (note the mattress on the floor, no bed yet). The walls were covered in a white/cream wallpaper and there was nice mid-afternoon light streaming in from a solitary window. I just smiled and told the kids to carry on. I had the 35mm Biogon attached to the Leica M6 already and once they had gotten used to me being there, I took several shots. They were un-posed. I used the M6's built-in light meter and metered for the floor (I think).
After scanning the negative (3200dpi, Epson F-3200), I cropped the image slightly and did some minor Photoshopping (levels, curves, spotting, unsharp mask, border).
@Formal: I thought about cloning out the socket on the wall but decided against it because it looked fairly unobtrusive to me.
This is my favourite shot of the session. Who says 'never work with children'?!
All the best.
--
Monz
Last edited: