DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> What tells a bigger story?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 54 of 54, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/10/2009 09:38:38 PM · #51
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And to Richard. A monkey could obviously not shoot Qart's picture unless he understands makeup and lighting. Assuming Qart had control of those (and I'm be disappointed if he didn't), his shot definitely shows skill. Probably 90% of us, even with access to a beautiful model, would come up with quite inferior results because we don't know studio lighting.


Obviously I exaggerated to make a point like you did with the security camera comment but the point stands, which was the shot isn't as difficult as you make it out to be (of course I could be wrong and I'll grant that).

However, lets analyze. I doubt Rudy did the makeup himself (but if he did kudos) nor did he pick out this model from a casting call (working with an unfamilar model you may have to coach is far more difficult than someone you know well) nevermind the model isn't asked to do anything other than to look into the camera once her makeup is on. Now lets get to the technicals. Is the composition/POV special? It works but again it is centered and straight on which isn't exactly breaking new ground nor is it a difficult to get. So what we are left with is the lighting. Assuming of course he lit it which I'm quite sure he did so that's the one thing that may stand out from a difficulty level, but in my not so humble opinion I don't believe it was all that difficult. I doubt he had to grab this shot in under 15 minutes so I'd expect he should be able to light his subject adequately especially given the fact that he has the equipment to do so. I don't know why people think working with off-camera lighting is all that difficult. It is only difficult if you're pressed for time and have to work with subpar equipment for the task. Rudy's entry before this one which also won a ribbon took far more risks and is a style that demands far more than what he was required of with Geisha.

ETA: If anybody feels insulted because I dare critique a ribbon winner keep it to yourself, please. Rudy is quite capable of defending his own work so allow him to do that if he so chooses. I would expect the same courtesy of anybody critiqing my work, which of course you are free to do and would encourage. After all we are all here to learn right?


I'm with Yanko however, Much to my horror after starting this thread I discovered that Steve is indeed a student of Rudy's lighting for ribbons class at the local Shoprite. here is the proof. I would have shot wider but the sigma 10-20 is hard to focus off camera and this is the best shot I could get of Steve claiming to have shot a "street Scene" the guy is a farce.

01/10/2009 10:05:35 PM · #52
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Eta: Bear I understand that point but someone who really wants to understand a scene will rummage around this type of image for a moment. So, those guys reading the posters were there...what, do you do ask them to leave? NOT get the shot? That's crazy.


No, not at all. I quite agree with you in the sense that it is what it is. My point is that those who "critique" the image by saying the two "readers" are a distraction within the image are pretty much correct, that's all; they ARE a distraction, compositionally ΓΆ€” that's just how it worked out. I'm not sure what the disagreement is about here, frankly... I mean, I'm sure you'd agree that whatever is necessary for a shot to transcend, to move to a higher realm of what it is, this shot doesn't have it. Right?

I mean, you look at the "best" of Cartier-Bresson, and then at the bulk of Cartier-Bresson, and you can see that only a relative few of his images are canonical. Ditto Ansel, ditto Dorthea Lange, ditto whomever. And when an image does cross that line to greatness, we can figure out why, just as when an image fails to cross the line, we can look at it and see what's lacking, or (more often) what ought to be lacking/removed but unfortunately was not. I mean, you go out on the street shooting, I go out in the landscape shooting, we come back with 10, 50, 100, whatever images apiece, and how many of them even move us to go further with them?

So it's no criticism of you or your art or the effort expended in pursuit of same that you "didn't ask the guys to move": of course not! You can't do that. But still, their presence at just that point int he image is holding the image back from being as expressive as it might be of the woman and her world, because that's what composition DOES for us; it's like the syntax of our art.

R.


Personally, I don't find those readers to be distracting but even if they were I'd have to ask myself does it matter? Would their removal improve the image? I'd say no. It's important to consider what Steve was after or what I believe he was after here. He's trying to show a slice of Asian life and not fabricate it. To show the rice cooker on an abandoned street with no distractions would be a lie EVEN if it technically happened within the confines of his camera frame. To keep the hustle and bustle out of the frame that is occurring around him would be a lie to the viewer as well as to himself. He can't do that if he respects his craft at all. Now is this a great image? A work of art? No, but it is truthful and honest and that is a hell of a lot more difficult to capture than the lie.

Edited to clarify.

Message edited by author 2009-01-10 22:10:50.
 01/10/2009 10:31:53 PM · #53
Bear-If it sounded like I was disagreeing with you it was slightly off point and my fault.

My main issue is the gravity to which people would detract from that image for a natural line (the curb) that leads or two gents in frame that carry some weight. They don't distract me in the slightest and if they do as yanko said "so what?". A larger issue, disregarding my image is that folks here are hyper-sensitized to so much minute bull and literally miss the bigger picture.

I enjoy showing a rich bountiful scene. I like giving a viewer more than just the subject to chew on. Outside of Challenges and outside of DPC I've received many compliments for the exact thing that some folks are finding fault in.

One more thing, lighting is not rocket science. It's very simple. If something works just repeat it. There are so many tried and true, super, simple lighting diagrams out there to follow. Seriously, it's as complicated as, paint by numbers. Food is hard to light and I lit this set-up, quite literally right out of the box. It's my first shoot, taken maybe an hour after I purchased strobes. I read two tutorials and asked the guy who sold me the lights for some parting advice and he said "create a window" (with the lights). That's it. No great mystery.

Message edited by author 2009-01-10 22:35:28.
 01/11/2009 09:29:33 AM · #54
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And to Richard. A monkey could obviously not shoot Qart's picture unless he understands makeup and lighting. Assuming Qart had control of those (and I'm be disappointed if he didn't), his shot definitely shows skill. Probably 90% of us, even with access to a beautiful model, would come up with quite inferior results because we don't know studio lighting.


Obviously I exaggerated to make a point like you did with the security camera comment but the point stands, which was the shot isn't as difficult as you make it out to be (of course I could be wrong and I'll grant that).

However, lets analyze. I doubt Rudy did the makeup himself (but if he did kudos) nor did he pick out this model from a casting call (working with an unfamilar model you may have to coach is far more difficult than someone you know well) nevermind the model isn't asked to do anything other than to look into the camera once her makeup is on. Now lets get to the technicals. Is the composition/POV special? It works but again it is centered and straight on which isn't exactly breaking new ground nor is it a difficult to get. So what we are left with is the lighting. Assuming of course he lit it which I'm quite sure he did so that's the one thing that may stand out from a difficulty level, but in my not so humble opinion I don't believe it was all that difficult. I doubt he had to grab this shot in under 15 minutes so I'd expect he should be able to light his subject adequately especially given the fact that he has the equipment to do so. I don't know why people think working with off-camera lighting is all that difficult. It is only difficult if you're pressed for time and have to work with subpar equipment for the task. Rudy's entry before this one which also won a ribbon took far more risks and is a style that demands far more than what he was required of with Geisha.

ETA: If anybody feels insulted because I dare critique a ribbon winner keep it to yourself, please. Rudy is quite capable of defending his own work so allow him to do that if he so chooses. I would expect the same courtesy of anybody critiqing my work, which of course you are free to do and would encourage. After all we are all here to learn right?


Richard, it's just like going to an instant-passport photo booth :)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/23/2025 10:28:11 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/23/2025 10:28:11 AM EDT.