Comment please

Pictures taken on the streets of Cuba. my zoom lens wasn't strong enough and my choices of focus leaves to be desired. Other then that, what else could be improved? Thanks. This is my first shot at photography.

Pictures taken on the streets of Cuba. my zoom lens wasn't strong enough and my choices of focus leaves to be desired. Other then that, what else could be improved? Thanks. This is my first shot at photography.

 

[ATTACH=full]1326102[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=full]1326104[/ATTACH]

What camera did you use? Digital or film? Any chance you can provide the camera settings when you took these photographs?

A little on the 'flat' side, but not bad. reprint if film, tone up in Photoshop if digital.

Here's just a quick step-up, setting the whites and blacks for correct1on (0 to 255, which see)

BTW, when you've only got one lens, you simply need to do more of what is called "foot zooming" by moving around more

It would be useful if you provided the JPEG file as it is "straight out of the camera": seeing the JPEG file SOOC, will allow more useful commentary on the technical aspects of your camera techniques and you Post Production Techniques.

IMO, one area requiring improvement are your Post Production Techniques, especially the conversion to Black and White.

As a general Technical comment, your Shutter Speeds are too slow to be 'safe' for Street Portraiture. at those Shutter Speeds, you will get Subject Blur in some images. 1/200~1/250s is very safe for adults sitting, not attending to physical tasks. I like 1/500s for adults standing.

One comment on Artistic considerations - in neither shot do you have the camera straight (vertically) - because the vertical lines in the composition are so strong, that is annoyance to my Viewer's Eye.

***

What camera did you use? Digital or film? Any chance you can provide the camera settings when you took these photographs?

According to EXIF:

First image - Fuji, X-T3; FL=50mm; F/4 @ 1/80s@ ISO250; Pattern Metering.

Second Image - Fuji, X-T3; FL=33mm; F/5.6 @ 1/150s@ ISO250; Pattern Metering.

WW

When I look at these two photos, I am mostly struck by subject matter and content. I agree with others that there are technical matters which could be addressed, though I also think there may be some intentional or at least room for some intentional grittiness in the technical approach. That said, there's a difference between expressive grittiness and photographic muddiness. Photos like this don't need to adhere to Ansel Adams's vision or even Cartier Bresson's in terms of technique. But it's worth being mindful of how the technique is reading and how technique can be improved without necessarily being cleansed or even overly refined.

Before getting into technical or processing issues, I'd like to ask lachance what he's wanting to show or express here. Questions that come to mind are "Did you talk to these guys?" "Were you feeling alienated?" "Empathetic?" "Cold?" "Curious?" What I experience when I look at these is a somewhat generic take, an emotionally distanced or disconnected view of two guys on a street. I'm left cold. While the spin on what's shown could be changed with different post processing maneuvers, I'm not sure the basic premise would be much different no matter how it was now dealt with.

IMO, there would be more personal or individual alternatives in reshooting with a modified approach to the subjects themselves and the street as environment.

. . . I also think there may be some intentional or at least room for some intentional grittiness in the technical approach. That said, there's a difference between expressive grittiness and photographic muddiness. . . .

Agree. I thought long and hard about commenting on the grain/grit, especially in the first shot. . . which leads to:

I'd like to ask lachance what he's wanting to show or express here. . .

Agree also - agree emphatically.

It is (best practice?) an imperative to have some idea of the "artist's statement" or "intention": arguably more useful that it is provided by a Novice when seeking critique.

WW

It is (best practice?) an imperative to have some idea of the "artist's statement" or "intention": arguably more useful that it is provided by a Novice when seeking critique.

Yes, when I was new at photography I had the benefit of a mentor who was very patient in helping me to draw out my own intentions and desires with photographs I was making. Amazingly, those intentions were not always apparent to me, and still sometimes are not. Sometimes, in fact, the photos I'm taking give me as much insight into my intentions as my own thinking does, an almost reciprocal process.

This is why I like that you talked about it in terms of having "some idea" of intentions, because it's not always strictly clear. I think there's an ongoing process, an unfolding, with regard to intention, motivation, and self awareness.

A rather superficial reaction. Good photos, with suggested adjustments, but for the love of all that is good, please lose the horrible watermark. I beg of you.

I totally agree about the watermark. It is so garish that a viewer's eye can't help but to concentrate on it instead of the subject matter.

Of these two photos, I like the first one far more, I think the angle of the shot on the 2nd somehow puts me off. I'll think about this some ore and see if I can put my feelings into words, a little better.

One note to the original poster, lachance1965, RE THE WATERMARK, since the EXIF data reveals the camera to be reasonably (or perhaps very) modern, I suggest it to be possible that you may be able to ad your own name, copyright, and other information to the camera so that the EXIF data "fingerprint" reflects ownership in every photo. I have an Olympus camera that is several years old and I've done such with it. Worth look around your camera's menu for sure.

Thanks for all the comments. And yes, the water mark will be gone. In the first photo, I liked the subject mather but I did not take the time to zoom properly, my shutter speed was to slow and I should have focused more on the eyes. In the second photo, I should have taken the time to construct my framing better and experiment with different angles to the subject. thanks again to everyone that took the time to write.

I will also think about the message I want to convey before taking a picture and construct my picture from there.

Hi @lachance1965, thanks for posting these and asking for feedback/tips. I'm sorry I'm so late to this party! I would just like to add my +1 to some of @samstevens' points. I really like street photography, though I'm not so good at it .

In general, like your 2 photos, You have good 'eye'!. To mee, the photos fall into the category 'street portraits': you see someone that interests you in their situation. You have minutes, rather than a few seconds, to take the photo. Like many (most?) amateur, every-now-and-then, opportunistic street photographers, I too find it easier (in my comfort zone) to take quick an 'unobtrusive' portrait shot than to do all the hard work of introducing myself, making contact, asking permission, explaining why I 'd like to take a photo, offering some recompense, facing rejection, etc.

But from what I've seen of (many) street portraits, the difference between a 'cooperative' portrait shot and an 'unobtrusive; ' (aka. surreptitious) portrait shot is very clear from the photo. Mainly through perspective, eye contact and expression (or the lack thereof). Cooperative (subject + photographer) street photos tend to be much more real, vibrant and engaging than 'unobtrusive, surreptitious ' ones.

So, coming back to your photos, I note that there is no eye contact in photo 1 and that photo 2 is taken from a side angle. Questions about zoom, focus etc. are IMHO secondary.I humbly suggest that the best way of improving your street portrait photos is to to make more contact with the people you want to photograph. I'm not suggesting that this is easy. Just that this one thing would improve your street portraits more than any technical improvements.

I'm just fantasizing here. In both cases (photos 1 and 2), I can imagine you makIng contact either before or after taking photos. In my experience, it's difficult to 'fake' genuine interest so I'd just be honest about it. My guess is that the more the subjects accept that you're genuinely interested in them as individuals and their life/living conditions, the more they'll be be inclined to cooperate. Especially if you 'recompense' their willingness. There is of course the possibility that your offer will be rejected. Perhaps because they just don't want to pose for tourists. Perhaps because you're the x thousandth tourist whose come along in the last 20-40 years with a similar story. Perhaps because posing for photos has proved to make little difference.

But I stick to my argument. If you can find people who willingly (as subjects) to participate in your photos, these photos will will be more authentic and engaging than any you take 'unobtrusively' or of people who (after many years) are just used to it and take tourists for what they've got.

I don't in any way mean this post as a criticism of Cuba. mY CITO

Questions that come to mind are "Did you talk to these guys?" "Were you feeling alienated?" "Empathetic?" "Cold?" "Curious?"

But from what I've seen of (many) street portraits, the difference between a 'cooperative' portrait shot and an 'unobtrusive; ' (aka. surreptitious) portrait shot is very clear from the photo. Mainly through perspective, eye contact and expression (or the lack thereof). Cooperative (subject + photographer) street photos tend to be much more real, vibrant and engaging than 'unobtrusive, surreptitious ' ones.

I think a challenge of making good candid street portraits or photos of people you don’t directly engage is finding alternatives to eye contact and alternatives to more distant-feeling uninvolved-observer* perspectives and angles that can still make for a real, vibrant, and engaging photo.

*You might very well want to express the alienation of street distance or some other aspect of disconnection, all of which are valid and can be quite moving. It usually requires more than simply being disconnected and finding visual means of expressing it.

The heart on the wall with the couple’s names in the first picture is a great symbol to work with juxtaposed to the lone guy on the bench involved in his drawing. It could make him seem more alienated and alone ... or connected to it via his own similar act of illustrating. The three tall windows with bars also have the potential to be evocative of some mood or emotion. A little more thought to and work with the elements already in the frame could be expressive of any number of things, depending on how they’re handled.

Right now, it comes off to me as pretty matter of fact, which works sometimes as well.

Oops my 15 mins 'edit' time' had expired. I wanted to add that my previous post is not in any way a criticism of Cuba. Just a warning to amateur photographers who may hope (in any country of the world ) to still find 'original, authentic'' photos.

Most tourist photos- wherever in the world - have already ben taken., So individuality is not what you photograph but how you photograph.

Mike