Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
Fine that you don't like it, no problem. But yours is still one of the most interesting comments so far, in fact you hit the nail on the head: yes, when one thinks about this part of the world one's often thinking rough and tough. Murmansk has indeed rough surroundings, particularly badly maintened buildings and public space - which would have shown even better if I had posted even more photos (one ugly block may mean little, but hundreds or thousands..) - and relatively poor people compared to west European countries. However, you'll find that Murmansk is not that different to anywhere else: you find the poor and the rich, the old people feeding pigeons on a bench and the young people surfing on the net while drinking a Mojito, the decadent and the trendy.. You may have meant your feedback as a negative one, but to me it isn't.
jarski
Veteran
only saw whats online now and PP seems ok to me. dont think its big issue mention a camera in first sentences, when posting material to camera forum. agree that theres a bit repetition. I'd enjoy individual photos more if there was something besides plain image, e.g one sentence of location or little more additional info, anything.
I'd love visit Murmansk as well. Russians are careful not to tamper old Soviet feel of some of their cities. time still seems frozen to Brezhnev-era, 1970's. thanks for sharing.
I'd love visit Murmansk as well. Russians are careful not to tamper old Soviet feel of some of their cities. time still seems frozen to Brezhnev-era, 1970's. thanks for sharing.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Well I still don't really like it. It's better with the editing now, and it's a good travel album, don't get me wrong. But for a reportage or for something about which you want people to exercise their critical capabilities the selection of motifs still seems strange - concrete blocks, a few heritage buildings, post-industrial landmarks, and if someone appears happy it's either a pretty young girl or an immigrant.
It's like going to New York for a day and shooting a few skyscrapers, Wall Street, Grand Central Terminal, a few blonde girls and some street sellers in Chinatown. As a result you get a travel album, but not a reportage. I guess what I miss is the interaction with people, the point where you have an insight into their lives, the feeling that there's more going on than a tourist looking at odd architecture, pretty girls and exotic people from Asia.
I realize that this might be difficult to do in just three days and if you don't have a common language, and so maybe it's just a matter my own taste. But I think there's a difference between a "reportage", which should have a bit of interaction and depth and some kind of underlying question that goes beyond "Look at where I've been", and a personal travel album.
raid
Dad Photographer
Regardless whether some comments are viewed as harsh, the OP will benefit from honest critique here. I learn from such comments when I go over someone else's thread and also when I happen to have travelled and I dare post about it. Often its mostly "get closer", which isca good reminder.
BobYIL
Well-known
This was addressed to me (BobYIL). Whereas I have stated right at the beginning:
"...layout, comments and prose all are interesting. The subjects for photos too... I liked them." and also "Once again a nice picture story but needing rework IMHO to become more interesting."
I have also expressed appreciation following your "retouches"..
To suggest a few tips to make them look more interesting = "Slaughtering a piece of work.. to put it mildly..."?
Sorry for providing feedback. You can easily undo anything there based on my suggestions if you do not feel comfortable with. After all, it's your reportage.
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
No Bob, in fact not adressed particularly to you. It was meant generally to the IMO exaggerated focus that MANY have put on the postprocessing, especially the vignetting, while providing little comment on subject, content, mood, composition, and so on. If I hadn't appreciated (and at least partly agreed with) your and other forumers' suggestion to reduce the vignetting, you can be damn sure I would not have reduced it. As you see.. ;-)
mdarnton
Well-known
Andrea, what follows are very general comments about doing documentary photos, not your pictures individually as single shots:
A couple of people have said some things I would have said, but let me put it together as I see it: The solution to clutter is not vignetting, it's to move closer and eliminate clutter from the photo, entirely.
As I look at the thumbs, there are very few photos shot from closer than about 15 feet. The general rule for a photo story is that you need establishing shots (distance), mid-range shots making specific points, and close-ups for texture. Your pictures are almost all establishing shots, and there are no close-ups at all, so though we get the big picture over and over, we get very little from an intimate and personal perspective, as one of the local people would be seeing things--essentially you have remained a tourist, unable to focus on the details of daily life. There are a few mid-range shots at the end, but they're basically the same. Each photo needs to be necessary, and there can be a few that don't work on their own, but usually they should be able to stand as individuals.
Also, a "story" usually has some sort of underlying point that the photos make, and it's good for the photographer to keep that in mind so the collection of pictures doesn't get too diffuse.
It takes a lot of discipline to keep varying one's viewpoint, and when I was working on a newspaper, I had to constantly keep asking myself if I had done that. The other two things I had to force myself to do, which you should be keeping in mind, was to always mix verticals in with horizontals, ideally getting every different situation in both formats (you might change your mind when you see the photos as to which you prefer, so it's good to have both types), and always to crop my photos so tightly that no editor could ever take something away without ruining the picture.
I learned that last one after watching my "atmospheric" four-column pix consistently turn into two- or three-column photos in the paper, after the editor's scissors hit them. There are better ways to create atmosphere than adding empty, value-free space. Basically, if you can still cut something off of a picture, you aren't finished composing it yet.
These are very basic points of documentary photography, and if they aren't there, one hasn't even started to work. I see these failings in a lot of people who casually call themselves documentary photographers but who remain, essentially, amateurs and unemployable. I am reading a book of interviews with all of the photographers who ever worked for LIFE magazine, and one of them comments very early in the book that there are plenty of good photographers, but very few who can actually tell a story
(Ahem: unlike the self-published or can't-get-work documentarians here, I actually got paid to do documentary photography full-time for seven years, and won a handful of prizes that I didn't apply for, for it. Just thought I'd say that.
A couple of people have said some things I would have said, but let me put it together as I see it: The solution to clutter is not vignetting, it's to move closer and eliminate clutter from the photo, entirely.
As I look at the thumbs, there are very few photos shot from closer than about 15 feet. The general rule for a photo story is that you need establishing shots (distance), mid-range shots making specific points, and close-ups for texture. Your pictures are almost all establishing shots, and there are no close-ups at all, so though we get the big picture over and over, we get very little from an intimate and personal perspective, as one of the local people would be seeing things--essentially you have remained a tourist, unable to focus on the details of daily life. There are a few mid-range shots at the end, but they're basically the same. Each photo needs to be necessary, and there can be a few that don't work on their own, but usually they should be able to stand as individuals.
Also, a "story" usually has some sort of underlying point that the photos make, and it's good for the photographer to keep that in mind so the collection of pictures doesn't get too diffuse.
It takes a lot of discipline to keep varying one's viewpoint, and when I was working on a newspaper, I had to constantly keep asking myself if I had done that. The other two things I had to force myself to do, which you should be keeping in mind, was to always mix verticals in with horizontals, ideally getting every different situation in both formats (you might change your mind when you see the photos as to which you prefer, so it's good to have both types), and always to crop my photos so tightly that no editor could ever take something away without ruining the picture.
I learned that last one after watching my "atmospheric" four-column pix consistently turn into two- or three-column photos in the paper, after the editor's scissors hit them. There are better ways to create atmosphere than adding empty, value-free space. Basically, if you can still cut something off of a picture, you aren't finished composing it yet.
These are very basic points of documentary photography, and if they aren't there, one hasn't even started to work. I see these failings in a lot of people who casually call themselves documentary photographers but who remain, essentially, amateurs and unemployable. I am reading a book of interviews with all of the photographers who ever worked for LIFE magazine, and one of them comments very early in the book that there are plenty of good photographers, but very few who can actually tell a story
(Ahem: unlike the self-published or can't-get-work documentarians here, I actually got paid to do documentary photography full-time for seven years, and won a handful of prizes that I didn't apply for, for it. Just thought I'd say that.
Schlapp
Well-known
Well I love the work and the writing. Looking forward to seeing more.
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
This is very good food for thoughts, mdarnton. I and probably others, since you formulated it so well, will think about that.
But I just want to add that almost all those photos were shot through a 24 mm lens, and from a distance that's much closer than 15 feet. In fact, most photos of people, both the ones where the subject was talking to me and the ones from hip level, were taken at about 3 - 5 feet. By choice (I had a 50 mm with me too). And some "empty" space around a subject shot through a wide lens, possibly filled with strong vignetting to draw attention to the subject, seems to be a pretty common practice in press this side of the sea (see examples below, all taken from today's papers). But believe me, I do see your points.
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
But I just want to add that almost all those photos were shot through a 24 mm lens, and from a distance that's much closer than 15 feet. In fact, most photos of people, both the ones where the subject was talking to me and the ones from hip level, were taken at about 3 - 5 feet. By choice (I had a 50 mm with me too). And some "empty" space around a subject shot through a wide lens, possibly filled with strong vignetting to draw attention to the subject, seems to be a pretty common practice in press this side of the sea (see examples below, all taken from today's papers). But believe me, I do see your points.
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
mdarnton
Well-known
When I worked, I often used only a Leica with a 28mm on it, and an Olympus with 50mm macro, or sometimes replaced the Leica with another OM1 with a 21mm. It forced me into shooting two very different viewpoints, plus the ability to easily do very close shots quickly.
I think it's essential to do something to force yourself to approach things in ways you would not naturally do.
The nice thing about being a legitimate news photographer was that it gave me permission to move right in tight on things. . . something that might have been difficult for you to make yourself to do in that place in your situation. Now that I don't do it for a living, I rarely move out of my own comfort zone, and so my pictures are much less varied than they were when I was working, then.
I think it's essential to do something to force yourself to approach things in ways you would not naturally do.
The nice thing about being a legitimate news photographer was that it gave me permission to move right in tight on things. . . something that might have been difficult for you to make yourself to do in that place in your situation. Now that I don't do it for a living, I rarely move out of my own comfort zone, and so my pictures are much less varied than they were when I was working, then.
mdarnton
Well-known
Going back and looking at the photos with editing in mind, you have a nice package in there of ten or fifteen shots which would look great together, be a strong presentation, and say everything you have to say. Why not take a look at it from that angle, and figure out which ones are the strongest to go with what you've written?
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
I was actually reluctant to this, cause my point was never to tell a story in as few photos as possible (as if publishing it on press) but rather to share travel story is as many of its aspects as possible. However, it is always a nice exercise to cut down to the essential and see what one's left with. So below I copy a selection of those that IMO summarise not the truth about this place, but my travel story and my impression of it: a corner of the world where the soviet past still shows from both the urban architecture, an aggressive exploitation of natural resources and a population that on average could be enjoying better wealth and health. But also a corner of the world where new generations seem to pursue the very same goals (being an iPad, a D&G bag or a master degree) and trends as youths in most wester countries, and where a visitor will definitely find unbeatable hospitality and friendliness from people of any age and wealth level.
Now, I know many still won't like this stuff. But about 50% of the feedback I got was very positive, and the remaining 50% rather negative. This, in addition to personally being satisfied with my trip and photo story, to me is VERY good results (actually I read much worse comments here on the forum about Eric Kim or Bruce Gilden!!
)
RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
In general, I like it. The colours are well-chosen, and the photos certainly convey a feeling of the atmosphere. I'm getting flashbacks to Ukraine.
I didn't feel bored going through the slideshow and was curious to see more, and that's a big plus for you.
My favourite, if you care, is the one with white smoke rising at the end of a snow-clad road. Beautiful. And I just noticed (after choosing it) that it's also one of those with no vignetting.
Another very good one is the lady looking out the window of bus no. 3. Also doesn't have much vignetting. I see a pattern forming.
Like other commenters, I am a bit put off by the heavy vignetting. I find it somewhat distracting. And I could do with seeing more straight verticals in some of the architecture images. Also I'd prefer fewer wide-angle shots.
You could also sort the images some more (maybe down to 20) to only focus on the very best. It seems to me like there are too many pictures and hence too much repetition of motifs.
A couple of good full-face portraits would have rounded the series off nicely, in my humble opinion.
I hope this helps.
I didn't feel bored going through the slideshow and was curious to see more, and that's a big plus for you.
My favourite, if you care, is the one with white smoke rising at the end of a snow-clad road. Beautiful. And I just noticed (after choosing it) that it's also one of those with no vignetting.
Another very good one is the lady looking out the window of bus no. 3. Also doesn't have much vignetting. I see a pattern forming.
Like other commenters, I am a bit put off by the heavy vignetting. I find it somewhat distracting. And I could do with seeing more straight verticals in some of the architecture images. Also I'd prefer fewer wide-angle shots.
You could also sort the images some more (maybe down to 20) to only focus on the very best. It seems to me like there are too many pictures and hence too much repetition of motifs.
A couple of good full-face portraits would have rounded the series off nicely, in my humble opinion.
I hope this helps.