critique please - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 ED-IF

01/29/2004 01:13:29 AM · #1

Would anyone like to submit a critique for this picture. i would appreciate any comments.

rmahan

Nikon D3

01/29/2004 07:47:53 AM · #2

Ok, I'll give it a shot.

I have the feeling that the picture isn't actually straight. It may be; I haven't measured it but it appears tilted to the left. The composition is pretty good but the flyers posted on the wall seem to distract me from your main subject. Those might have been minimized if this had been a vertical shot rather than horizontal but then I wasn't there and you would be the best judge of that. If you chose to do that, I would still keep the accordian player in the lower right corner of the frame because that is part of the strength of the composition. The exposure is probably as good as you're going to get at this time of day which, I assume is either mid to late morning or afternoon judging from the shadows. Your whites are white and the blacks are black so you've covered the complete tonal range. I like the picture as an example of "local color". Oh, and I like the shadows falling in front of the player. Since at least one is of a person (I think) it implies that the accordian player is good enough for someone to stop and listen.

Message edited by author 2004-01-29 07:49:03.

lockjawdavis

Fujifilm FinePix 3800

01/29/2004 07:56:08 AM · #3

I quite like it. The framing is nice. The ads/playbills on the left add a nice graphic element. My only beef are with the shadows covering the musician. Whether it's your shadow or a passer-by's, I might have tried to eliminate it somehow.
Nice job, all told...

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for Canon

01/29/2004 08:07:23 AM · #4

hey guys, thanks for the replys.

yeah i agree with the straight thing. if you look on the pillar in the background, and see the horizontal lines on it... they are crooked. the street COULD be crooked, but i don't think the pillar is... so yeah you are right... thanks for pointing that out.. and yeahi think it would be helful for the posters if it was straight as well. i do agree they could be distracting, but perhaps also like the repetition they give to the simple image of the busker. do you think it is too dark?

Quadrajet

Canon EOS-40D

01/29/2004 08:31:26 AM · #5

Originally posted by lockjawdavis:

I agree with lockjawdavis and I'll add...

I'm thinking that a polarizer might have helped take some of the reflections away from the window on the right and at the same time helped saturate the colors a bit more.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/29/2004 10:06:38 AM · #6

I think this is great - you've captured a sense of the place, with an interesting human subject. The shadows show that there were others watching and the landscape format is wide enough to give a sense of the place.

The slope and non-parallel lines are just a part of the world - I'm amazed that could be the first thing someone comments on.

I was struck last night flicking through National Geographic 'Through The Lens' that the majority of these wonderful, interesting, engaging pictures that I was looking at would bomb here. They had non-perfect alignment, some camera movement, lots of grain, not perfectly stopped motion, not absolutely manufactured composition, straight from the Kodak 'how to' books - the complete antithesis of what dpc seems to value. This is not a rant about 'art' or arty pictures being ignored here - this is about interesting pictures being picked appart for no good reason other than, like the real world, interesting pictures of the real world aren't as perfect as a knick-knack pulled off the mantle and stuck under an orangy 60-watt bulb.

The majority of the pictures in that national geograhic book would probably score well under 4 here - the flaws were so numerous - it would be a picky critiquers dream...

non-straight horizons
some blown highlights
grain
some motion blur
not perfect light!

yet these were some of the most interesting, engaging pictures I've looked at in a long time. It would be great if people could see the interest in a great picture like the one in this thread, rather than worrying about the angle of the ground or the reflections on the glass.

I get this strong sense that we are all missing the point... it isn't about bright colours and camera trickery, perfect exposure and parallel lines to the frame - its about interesting images that capture the imagination or provoke thought.

Message edited by author 2004-01-29 10:12:49.

Sonifo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

01/29/2004 10:21:29 AM · #7

Well said, Gordon. I have looked at this book a few times and seen the same thing you have. I couldn't agree more with your statment.

spectre013

Canon EOS-D60

01/29/2004 10:24:31 AM · #8

I would have liked to see a little tighter crop on the man himself and the shadow on him is a little distracting.

Quadrajet

Canon EOS-40D

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for Canon

01/29/2004 11:11:24 AM · #9

Gordon,

I've paged through that same Nat Geo book in awe of the things you mention above. I agree that, at times, too much attention is paid to the technicalities of photography; however, leaf did ask for a critique and I do believe that the image could benefit from some of the suggestions given. Whether or not leaf decides that it's perfect just as it is or not is strictly up to leaf.

Gordon, your post above was a nice reality check. I have found myself in situations that were less than favorable, dare I say "National Geographic" type positons and I've produced what could be considered by some "less than favorable" results. Specifically, shooting BMX in a dimly lit skatepark with a fisheye lens and handheld flash. With riders zipping behind me at 20 mph and occasionally running into me, that was not the time to worry about lighting ratios and level horizons.

I've been looking back on some of the old BMX shots I've had published in magazines. I realize that there are a lot of frames with 800 & 1600 negative film, complete with motion blur, low contrast and crooked horizons. What you said makes a lot of sense and is something I hadn't thought about since I shot film. Sometimes, it's more about capturing the moment and making it interesting, than trying to achieve the perfect image.

I think it might be time to pull the polarizer off, crank my iso up to 800 and go shoot some people this evening...even if it is -15 Farenheit. Well...that might be going a bit far.

Thanks,
Gregg

jonpink

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2

01/29/2004 11:24:27 AM · #10

Originally posted by Gordon:

I was struck last night flicking through National Geographic 'Through The Lens' that the majority of these wonderful, interesting, engaging pictures that I was looking at would bomb here. They had non-perfect alignment, some camera movement, lots of grain, not perfectly stopped motion, not absolutely manufactured composition, straight from the Kodak 'how to' books - the complete antithesis of what dpc seems to value. This is not a rant about 'art' or arty pictures being ignored here - this is about interesting pictures being picked appart for no good reason other than, like the real world, interesting pictures of the real world aren't as perfect as a knick-knack pulled off the mantle and stuck under an orangy 60-watt bulb.

The majority of the pictures in that national geograhic book would probably score well under 4 here - the flaws were so numerous - it would be a picky critiquers dream...

I posted exactly the same thing a few weeks back.

Page 42 would be ripped for not being put through the dreaded Neatimage ;)
Page 56 would get complaints about not being in focus or people telling you too use a faster shutter.
Page 189 would almost certainly get 10000000 comments on it being too dark.
And my fave of the book on page 38 would probably score around 3 for "what is this supposed to be"

Love 306 too by the way.

Being serious now, I think where you say "the flaws were so numerous" epitomises what is detrimental to this site and the photographers on it. Rules shmules. This creates so many false critiques where everyone follows the same pattern ("must be in focus throughout the image" - "it must have something interesting in this place rule of 3rds" - "you don't have a leading line" - "you don't have one main area for my eye to go to")

Arrrghhhhhhh!!!

drydoc

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/29/2004 11:57:52 AM · #11

Ahhh Gordon, now a.k.a the "Velvet Hammer." Nicely said, sir!

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/29/2004 11:57:53 AM · #12

Though the one thing I would like to see different in this shot is some eye contact ....

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

01/29/2004 12:15:14 PM · #13

I like this photo quite a bit. It's a good depiction of this place and maybe a bit of the culture that goes along with it.

I can't really add much to what Gordon has said here. Photographers still can't see photographs :) Of course there are a lot of things that could improve the image. I'm content with what I see and what it stands for... nice capture :)

jonpink

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2

01/29/2004 12:18:16 PM · #14

I don't think you need eye contact in a candid shot - defies the point.

01/30/2004 01:11:12 AM · #15

Originally posted by spectre013:

I would have liked to see a little tighter crop on the man himself and the shadow on him is a little distracting.

thanks for the comments again.

I tried a few tighter crops, but really favored the wider view. i thought it gave more of a setting for this picture. I think with taking pictures of buskers it is often important to SHOW that they are busking.. and show some of their settings. i liked how he looked sort of alone on the wall, but still that it was able to see that he was being watched. And yeah, i am not sure about the shadows. There isn't anyone's shadows on HIM.. there are some people's shadows on his case, but the shadow on the wall is his shadow.. unless you mean the contrast from light to dark on his face (ie his shadow) is too extreme...

thanks for your opinions... and feel free to argue against what i am saying.. and am just trying to share waht i thought and get some dialoge going.

01/30/2004 01:18:14 AM · #16

Originally posted by Gordon:

I get this strong sense that we are all missing the point... it isn't about bright colours and camera trickery, perfect exposure and parallel lines to the frame - its about interesting images that capture the imagination or provoke thought.

yeah i agree with this all too.. but i think that is a skill as well.. to get none technically perfect shots that are still perfect. I don't think some joe, who picks up a camera can go and shoot, and have the pictures blurry, dark, fuzzy and still call them good. there still IS thought in how the end product is, and how the framing is, if the 'mistakes' add or subract to the image. and i aree that a 'winning' photo doesn't have to look technically perfect.. but i am still not going to vote someone's picture that is a blurry poor looking snap shot a 10. however.. i WOULD vote a thought provoking artistic image a 10 which had 'flaws'... i think this same thing goes for paintings or other art. picasso didn't follow 'rules' or make nice renaissance paintings.. yet he was a great painter. but if i slap paint down and paint messy with bad colors.. they won't be great... they are great because he knows what he is doing. i think the national geographic people do knowwhat they are doing and feel how the image ends up DOES at to the finalresult.. which is a artistic decision.

01/30/2004 01:20:22 AM · #17

ok just one more line here.

the pictures in national geographic i think, look like that, not because they can't do better, but because they choose to have pictures looking like that.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/30/2004 10:31:51 AM · #18

Originally posted by leaf:

ok just one more line here.

the pictures in national geographic i think, look like that, not because they can't do better, but because they choose to have pictures looking like that.

I'd agree with this (and pretty much everything you said in the previous post too)

I think to take good pictures you need to transcend the compositional rules and Kodak Top 10 tips lists. That is certainly not the same thing as ignoring them from the start.

However, many people seem to use those same rules and top-10 lists as a checklist of what is good and bad in a photograph, without first looking at the picture and thinking if it works or not. Not does it perfectly match a list of things that 'must be done'.