[LRflex] Re: Posted oops critique
- From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@xxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:33:42 -0700
KEITH LONGMORE reposted site:
Subject: [LRflex] Oooops!
www.pbase.com/leica1938/gig and www.pbase.com/leica1938/eye_show_2007
Hi Keith here it is!
I’ll do a kind of overall comment, then break down picture by picture. Trust me
just as though I’m doing a Leica Seminar critique where everyone checks their
weapons before we start. ;-) .
The killer in nearly every one of these is the use of the light! It appears
you’re reacting to something without thought of whether the light is working
for you or where and how it’s lighting the subject. Back lighting in the
following: Concentration.. Friends.. That way.. Young engine driver…almost kill
the picture. One thing we all have to keep in mind, if the light isn’t working
for a good properly lit photograph, just shrug off the shot and move on. Or
move as quickly as one can to a better shooting position making the light work
rather than against us! Bad lighting will kill you every time as here.
I suppose in some of these they’re shot too loose even though you’re using a
300mm lens. Example:
“Concentration”
The two faces should fill the frame completely or you should’ve cropped it
tighter right around their heads. If there’s concentration it should show in
their eyes or facial expression. Or should be for the meaning of your title.
Very difficult to make either out. All that sky in the upper corners is also
killing you to see their eyes, not to mention the bright corners are just a
complete visual distraction.
“Friends” Not only is the light bad I can’t for the life of me figure out what
you were shooting or why you bothered shooting it? Like it’s a mass of what? My
eyes go all over the place looking for a main subject. On a blow-up it appears
there’s someone between the kid with hat on backwards to the right and the kid
nearest camera, But like what is it?
This particular picture is one of those where shooter and critic need to be
face to face discussing it so the critic can be told what the motivating factor
was or is. As we look at this I don’t see anything that warranted making an
exposure. We need your answer on this one. Please.
Here’s what happens quite often: We see something going on, we’re honestly
motivated and just as we go “click” everything changes before you see it. So
when you look at the finished picture it still seems like you re-call shooting
it. I realize these kids are friends because you put a title to the photo.
Titles quite frankly are an amateur photo club thing simply because, a photo
should stand on it’s visual impact and not a word. Unless there is some
particular reason for a title I’d suggest not doing it. It can create confusion
for a viewer at some later date.
“That way.” You chopped his hand off!!!! Bad enough cutting either hand off in
this type of photo, but surely chopping off his pointing hand is cruel!
Particularly when you have all that white sky area on the left side of the
frame where you could’ve swung camera allowing more room on the right and
complete hand.
The motivating moment is OK, you re-acted at what appears the right time, but
blew it by the hand chopping. It’s tough to just dump a shot and weep! But
because we, in general all photographers, are our own worst editors! We hate to
“file 13 garbage photos.” The cry of good editing is… “if in doubt, OUT!”
You’ll have a far better photo collection by being ruthless in editing.
“Young engine driver.” Yep it’s a young kid with hands on some form of
controls. But the rather large gentleman behind isn’t even in the picture in
the sense of contributing anything but a kind of mass of humanity! He’s not
even looking at his pupil, nor what he’s doing.
Again this picture falls into “we see a picture” but we don’t “see the whole
picture.” IE: the big fat guy ! You saw the makings of what could’ve been an
interesting photograph you just didn’t edit your looking. How to fix it? I
suppose a hard crop off the left side taking the big guy out of frame
completely which you can do and still leave enough of the boy’s arm intact.
Just hold a piece of paper up on the left side of the screen and come in to
just cut the man off, actually you may have to come into the boys arm a bit.
But it still holds together OK… barely. Another negative… the kid is looking
the wrong way. Or you should’ve waited for a better eye line and face changed
coming back to your direction. Not directly into camera, but something more
than loosing his face as we see here.
“Under the rope.” If the viewers of this picture knew what “under the rope” or
we actually see something going under a rope, then the picture may mean
something. But as it stands now, the driver and passenger are looking
completely out of picture.
Or a much tighter photograph illustrating the car going under the rope? I
assume that’s part of the action? But taken from the opposite direction from
where you’re shooting from catching drivers facial expressions whatever they me
be. One must always think “move for better angle” particularly when you see the
potential for a good photo.
Here’s how I see this car photograph. “Blue car, old Brit convertible type. A
couple of folks and the driver hand holding a rope?. Like what the heck is he
doing that for? Basically a meaningless exposure to viewers, however it means
something to the shooter . Again this photo falls into talking about it face to
face and why did you or what did you see to motivate making this exposure?
“Participant:” My first reaction was to the reflection you in the glass? Then
the angle? Surely you could see the edge of the window was cutting right
through this person’s face? The picture potential is terrific so I can’t
imagine why you picked this angle given the reflection is so obvious along with
the window edge totally screwing it up. Such obvious potential and it becomes a
nothing photograph.
“Deer to pig.” And this is exactly why title words are meaningless! I’d have
been looking for a better angle and using the 300mm to work for me from a more
dramatic angle if possible. Certainly in getting rid of the bright blown out
sky area left corner.
Looking at the frame without any knowledge of the surrounding area and being
able to walk about, I’d have moved to my left, as we look at the picture and
gotten rid of the background backlight clutter of leaves on the left. This
would’ve made the animals stand out cleaner against the dark background.
Hopefully you’ll find these helpful.
ted
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
- » [LRflex] Re: Posted oops critique
