Critique This, Please

though when presenting an image for critique it is judged by the results of one's effort, not by the effort itself.

And yet some here have judged the result less than the process and equipment that led to the result.

By listing his equipment, I don’t know that Ric was asking for a critique of that equipment as much as for exposure insights given the equipment and film used.

Agreed, a film/digital debate is useless.

By listing his equipment, I don’t know that Ric was asking for a critique of that equipment as much as for exposure insights given the equipment and film used.

He mentions that he used a phone app for metering - since he owns a digital camera, he could use that as a metering device (and learning tool). Having immediate access to the histogram (and an image if desired) greatly facilitates getting the exposure one desires for film. He states he is not a master of metering - yet he shuns access to the most immediate learning tool he already owns.

Incidentally, a Praktica LTL provides TTL-stop-down metering - wonder why he didn't use it?

I, personally, didn’t see it as that. I saw it as a request for critique for a photo that went awry that deserved a frank answer.

Neither Dieter nor I said one was going on. We said we didn’t want to get into one.

You didn’t give a frank answer or critique. You provided a useless comment attacking his equipment. You rarely provide critiques preferring instead to give opinions backed up by a lack of knowledge, experience, artistry, technical know-how, or a desire to be constructive.

I asked why he took a crap photo of a ‘super guy’. I asked why a beginner used crap equipment. That is the kind of feedback beginners need. It’s about as frank as you can get

As far as “beginners” go, Ric generally displays a good approach to his photos, as he tweaks his exposure capability. He tends to show a good sense of composition tailored to the stories he wants to tell and this is a more rare instance of such a poor exposure. He doesn’t fall pray to that trendy but hollow “app” look we’re so used to seeing by some camera users. It’s enlightening that Ric’s photos are consistently better than some who should by now have moved beyond beginner status, though many longer-term camera users are more than willing to label “crap” photos that tower above their own in so many ways. If only they’d ask themselves the same questions they ask beginners, maybe they’d grow beyond the hollow level they’ve achieved with their own photos and beyond the eye-poppingly insipid things they sometimes say to others about their work.

I'm tired of 'pretentious' being used as an excuse to dismiss anything that f’ing expects you to have a brain.

―T.J. Kirk

I asked why a beginner used crap equipment

The equipment is not at fault here; he could have used a Nikon, Canon, Minolta or Leica - the outcome would have been the same.

Just read about P30 - it appears to be a high-contrast film that doesn't give much leeway in preserving details in highlights and shadows and hence putting more restrictions on exposure metering than other more forgiving films - or simply precluding one from capturing those details in the first place without using techniques that reduce the dynamic range of the scene. It's fine if that's the look you want to achieve - but for many blown-out highlights and featureless shadows count as faults rather than as features. Though labeled panchromatic it appears to have low sensitivity for red. It also appears to benefit from careful development - probably better done at home than in a lab that doesn't specialize in developing that particular film.

Thanks for the info on the film, Dieter. Your research helps add to my thinking and knowledge of the situation.

Knowledge is power.

—Thomas Hobbes, Sir Francis Bacon, and other assorted illuminaries

:p

The equipment is not at fault here

Good point.

Hi guys, and wow what a lovely discussion! I’m enjoying reading through everything.

I didn’t mean for this to be any sort of debate but it’s kind of gone in a couple directions, eg; equipment variations and film/digital.

I tend to go a couple ways when presenting a photo, probably extreme on either end of the scale: either post the image and say absolutely nothing about it, or post the image with a story that may or may not have “too much information” in it.

I guess I’m still somewhat a beginner (clearly as some see it and I’m OK with that) even in that I’m just about 3-ish years into learning manual camera settings with my mostly basic film cameras. Even back when I was snapping shots with pocket sized digital cameras tho, I was being told by more than a couple people that I seemed to “have an eye” (for composition, I assume) and managed to produce a few photos that I’m am still in love with to this day. Point being that I kind of feel like I’m into perhaps an intermediate phase or at least have moved beyond “rank beginner”.

Anyway for me, “fun” is a somewhat important aspect of my photography. I am having fun, and I have no words to really fully express the level of fun from a situation like this past weekend, being surrounded by maybe 10 or more other photographers whose work- be it analog or digital or whatever- I really really admire. Furthermore, it is super gratifying to be accepted into their circle- maybe not as an equal but nodoby’s looking down their noses at me and everybody knows the name “Ricochetrider” which is how I introduce myself in this situations- giving them my across the board instagram & web handle as I tell them my real name. In summary, I’m an active member of a certain community of photographers in a niche group of vintage car and motorcycle enthusiasts. I’m very grateful to be included and honored to be able to shoot alongside these folks, and to hang out with them as well.

I’m playing a long game with photography. I might mess stuff up here and there but oh well. I’m not gonna break down and cry and I’m not even gonna let it hurt me in any way- everything is for learning.

Dieter, I guess maybe I’ll put some batteries in my LTL and see how its meter works. I use the meter in my Voigtlander Bessa R3m- usually to reasonably good effect. In terms of using my Olympus digital camera, I actually made a recent effort to learn & shoot it’s manual functions. Unfortunately it is just too darn complicated. Even reading the manual there are buttons, levers, scales, ins, & outs. Nothing and I mean nothing easy or remotely obvious about it. I may get another digital at some point... but maybe not. I guess I could shoot auto and read the set ups, then emulate them in my film cameras.... but I’m just not feeling it.

Meanwhile, to all participants, thanks for your input, critique, commentary, support, and also the occasional encouragement, positive remarks, compliments and kind words.

Have a good day everyone!

Tom

learning manual camera settings

I guess I could shoot auto

In either case, using an exposure meter requires understanding on when to accept its readings and when to change them (or the lighting situation itself). There's nothing special about using manual mode. Or one of the auto mode (aperture or shutter priority) or even program mode - just different ways of getting the same result (with more or less need to interfere). I started with manual film camera and was happy when I could afford the first one that provided me with aperture priority - at least now I didn't miss those shots were I had been too slow to set the correct parameters before. Learned pretty quickly though that the convenience came at a price - the settings the camera picked based on the exposure metering sometimes didn't get me the results I wanted but required exposure correction to be applied. The camera doesn't know what you want; you have to tell it. Different camera modes just require different ways of telling.

In terms of using my Olympus digital camera, I actually made a recent effort to learn & shoot it’s manual functions.

The most important tool a digital camera provides you with to determine the "correct" exposure is the histogram. Granted, how it is displayed depends on some in-camera settings - but that is also the power of it since it can be adapted to fit whatever film you are shooting with. If you set the ISO on your Olympus to match that of your film, shutter speed and aperture are directly transferable - the only thing you need to pay attention to then is the histogram itself. Values bunched up on either side - you will get featureless underexposed shadows or blown-out overexposed highlights. If they bunch up on either side - then you are out of luck and need to change the lighting situation itself (using fill-flash, reflectors, moving the subject, graduated ND filters or other color filters (for B&W). Play with the exposure compensation (or if in manual mode on the Olympus with either aperture or shutter speed) and the shifts in the histogram will tell you by how many stops you are off and when you can expect to have a properly exposed image without major over- or underexposed parts. In the old days, we tried to determine the "shape of that histogram" by spot-metering several parts of the image and then using our experience to come up with a setting that accomplished what we were after - directly being able to look at the histogram is a lot easier and faster.

Back in the day, we all learned the "sunny 16 rule" and all the modifications to it that needed to made if the day was clear and sunny but overcast and one was shooting in the shade. We all grew accustomed to making the necessary calculations in our head when we couldn't shoot at the 1/ISO shutter speed or didn't intend to shoot at f/16. Over time, we could be in whatever lighting situation and had a pretty good handle on what exposure parameters to set. Those who had the luxury for developing and printing their own film delved into Ansel Adams' zone system and modified development parameters as well as used special darkroom techniques to get the prints to match what we had visualized when we made the exposure. Nowadays, all it takes is to look at a histogram on the back LCD of a digital camera.