Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 14, 2009, 8:22 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default Critique?

I would like to start taking B&W shots of my street photography. The following image simply doesn't work in color. Forget about it. But it has (to me) a strange feel in b&w. I am curious as to the reactions of other people to this shot. BTW, these young ladies are NOT hookers...



Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 14, 2009, 8:32 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

Way too casual, out of focus and with distracting subjects.
I would like to know what YOU see in this pick.
Anyway, B&W is better for your street picks.
Ordo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2009, 8:52 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

These ladies are out to have a good time; "tanked," and obviously having a good time. This image, like all my night shots. are meant to convey a mood. I really don't give a damn about focus when I'm shooting at night. At the speeds I'm using focus is an academic question. What I want to know is, if I captured that mood of tanked and partying...

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2009, 9:00 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
At the speeds I'm using focus is an academic question. What I want to know is, if I captured that mood of tanked and partying...

Dave
In a word. NO. I dont get it. Why are you trying to give a name to lousy photography and make it sound artsy fartsy. You might know what the pic is all about but Im betting 12 out of 10 people would say they are a couple of hookers on the prowl.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2009, 9:28 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
In a word. NO. I dont get it. Why are you trying to give a name to lousy photography and make it sound artsy fartsy. You might know what the pic is all about but Im betting 12 out of 10 people would say they are a couple of hookers on the prowl.
I have a problem with your opinion.

It may very well be that this kind of photography is worthless. Which is like saying that if a photograph is not in crystal clear focus, by definition it can't be good.

Now I have demonstrated that I am quite capable of taking images that are suberb; that meet even your criteria of what a photograph should look like.

Obviously, if a photograph doesn't meet your standards, it's garbage. Gosh Bynx, you're such a humble soul.

My goodness gracious, I assume that you are the be all and end all of photographic knowledge?

Now THIS particular photograph has to my mind only one redeaming feature, does it or doesn't it show a mood? Ordo, says that it doesn't. I regard that as a decent critique.

Your critique? Your critique is garbage. Your opinions are garbage. They are garbage because you have a closed mind. I can imagine you back in the day when the Impressionists started to break the boundries of painting saying, "Why are you trying to give a name to lousy paintings and make it sound artsy fartsy"

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2009, 9:52 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

Folks please...
The problem with out of focus is not the out of focus in itself, but the fact that the background is more on focus than the girls, which is bizarre. Besides, there're two persons behind the girl on the right. You can see legs, a figure, etc. Distracting.

Last edited by Ordo; Nov 14, 2009 at 9:54 PM.
Ordo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2009, 10:07 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
I have a problem with your opinion.

It may very well be that this kind of photography is worthless. Which is like saying that if a photograph is not in crystal clear focus, by definition it can't be good.
Thats about it.
Now I have demonstrated that I am quite capable of taking images that are suberb; that meet even your criteria of what a photograph should look like.
Any superb images you might have posted are overshadowed by the unsuperb ones.
Obviously, if a photograph doesn't meet your standards, it's garbage. Gosh Bynx, you're such a humble soul.
Not garbage, thats your term. But a garbage pail would be a good recepticle.
My goodness gracious, I assume that you are the be all and end all of photographic knowledge?
Not at all, but I know what looks good TO ME and what doesnt. Im not speaking for anyone else.
Now THIS particular photograph has to my mind only one redeaming feature, does it or doesn't it show a mood? Ordo, says that it doesn't. I regard that as a decent critique.
I gave you a one word answer to your question and it was NO.
Your critique? Your critique is garbage. Your opinions are garbage. They are garbage because you have a closed mind. I can imagine you back in the day when the Impressionists started to break the boundries of painting saying, "Why are you trying to give a name to lousy paintings and make it sound artsy fartsy"
Why not strive to make a respectable image? Its been suggested you arent using the right equipment to capture night images properly. I had a pet monkey once who could make pics on par to your night shots such as this using his marker and paper.
Dave
I have refrained giving opinions on your shots. But you keep trying to draw out something from people that just isnt there. An appreciation for mediocrity.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2009, 10:29 PM   #8
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

alright, lets keep it civil at least.


Chato. i think Ordo hit the highlights on the composition, with the awkward legs behind the main subject, etc. plus for me i think getting up closer to the subjects, filling the frame a little bit more may work better for a shot like this. and in general, i think just getting a little more personal may be helpful.

for me the blurring is distracting. and the mood you are trying to capture gets lost in the blur and the almost smearing effect. i would rather see more noise than the blur and smearing look. are you shooting at absolute highest ISO? i would go ahead and shoot absolutely as high ISO as you can, and turn off the noise reduction. let it the noise come, and in black and white, it will come out more like film grain, which can actually improve a mood and i think will help you in getting what you are after.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2009, 8:37 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
alright, lets keep it civil at least.


Chato. i think Ordo hit the highlights on the composition, with the awkward legs behind the main subject, etc. plus for me i think getting up closer to the subjects, filling the frame a little bit more may work better for a shot like this. and in general, i think just getting a little more personal may be helpful.

for me the blurring is distracting. and the mood you are trying to capture gets lost in the blur and the almost smearing effect. i would rather see more noise than the blur and smearing look. are you shooting at absolute highest ISO? i would go ahead and shoot absolutely as high ISO as you can, and turn off the noise reduction. let it the noise come, and in black and white, it will come out more like film grain, which can actually improve a mood and i think will help you in getting what you are after.
As you must be aware, I have not put an image into the Critique forum before. This was one of the last shots I took using auto mode on this camera, and in color, the image has so much chroma noise as to be almost grotesque. Converting to B&W turned all the noise into grain. Since I vaguely know these two woman, I was struck by how much it revealed about their attitudes that night.

I tend to agree with Ordo, that even though it rings mental bells with my emotions, it just doesn't have enough "punch" to be a decent shot. It's not so much that these woman are out of focus as that they are moving.

Now on these forums, I comment on Bynx's shots when I think they have merit. His garbage shots I do not comment on.

Bynx has a limited and fixed view of what is and what is not a good image. His commentiing on my photography is like someone who believes that paintings should all be judged by an arbitrary standard of realism, stating that Impressionism is by defintion garbage.

Now to paraphrase him, if an image is not sharp or blured than it has no value, which means he has set himself up as the judge of all those great photographers who don't worry about either of the above. It's the image that counts, what the image says that counts, not an arbitrary standard which of "realism" which he insists is the only criteria

cartier_bresson_henri_matisse_with_birds.jpg (JPEG Image, 705x503 pixels)

bresson11.jpg (JPEG Image, 279x350 pixels)

cartier-bresson.quai.jpg (JPEG Image, 400x265 pixels)

A photographer should use the available light and make the best of it. Some of my best wildlife shots are blurred or indistinct, but wonderful nature shots - because they capture something which is both fleeting and revealing - And the same can be said about any other form of photography with the soul exception of some forms of commerical shooting. I'm not in any way implying that a photograph should be blured, but rather it's the capture of the moment that is the most important criteria.

The following shot, is out of focus, a little blured, it's also the best example of what a Marsh Hawk looks like when they use their facial feathering to capture sound. Yup, it's NOT an Owl. By Bynx's standards, I should have deleted it...









Dave

Last edited by Chato; Nov 15, 2009 at 8:55 AM. Reason: Adding a picture
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2009, 9:10 AM   #10
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Dave.

You have some very good shots and some very poor shots. But the Marsh Hawk is a great example of a very poor shot. It's noisy, no detail, poorly exposed, etc. It's a poor photo. For the same reason the photo in this critique section is a poor photo.

In the case of the hawk it may very well have been a shot worth capturing - but you didn't capture it well. The execution simply wasn't there.
I'd like to address some of your other statements if I may:
Quote:
Some of my best wildlife shots are blurred or indistinct, but wonderful nature shots - because they capture something which is both fleeting and revealing
It's tough to comment without specific photos but my guess after viewing some of these types of shots you've posted here is that they may speak to YOU because you took them. But they're still poor quality shots (for reference I'm referring to shots of geese I believe which you took from too far away and overcropped). I see shots from people like Wacky Roger and his are an example of capturing wonderful, fleeting images that are sharp, detailed and well exposed. This is the difference between photography and taking snapshots.

I'm really not sure why you keep making the argument that taking poor shots is really just a higher form of art.

Quote:
A photographer should use the available light and make the best of it.
Such a broad statement simply isn't justifiable without context. A lot depends on the purpose of the photo. Millions of people around the world are very happy their wedding photographer uses flash. It makes for a better photo. I'd hate to see available light shots of a wedding party inside a church. Ditto for portrait photography. There are endless examples of where adding light results in a better photograph. Now, there is certainly an argument that in certain instances using only available light is beneficial. No argument. But, there are also instances where using only available light results in poor photos. Good photography is often about using the right tools for the job. As I said in your other thread a person could WANT to take BIF shots from 200 yards away with a 50mm lens all they want. But calling that 'ART' is a poor excuse for using the wrong tools.

It's another subject entirely whether a shot is aesthetically pleasing to begin with - even if executed properly. This bird is a great example - if it were properly executed it would be a good shot. It wasn't and it does belong in the trash can IMO.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:26 AM.