Critique This, Please

OK so the other day, I was shooting this old Hudson, seen in the background here. This dude comes out of a pizza shop across the street and begins talking to me in heavily accented English, asking about the car, looking at my camera, etc. He circles the car with me as I shoot and I mean we're talking for about 15-20 minutes. Super nice guy. Finally, as I'm digging his look and just his overall "thing", I asked him if I can shoot his picture and only as I framed this shot did I realize he's holding bundles of cash money!

 

I know his white shirt is a little blown out. I did make some adjustments, to light, levels, & curves. Stuff I typically do to my film scans. Please let me know what you think of the shot. This was shot on my new-to-me Praktica LTL East German camera with its 50mm Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar lens on Ferrania P30 b&w film.

 

I'll spare y'all photos of the car! ;-)

 

Thanks in advance!

Tom

 

 

 

The shirt’s more than a little blown out and, even if not, it’s solid whiteness occupies a good deal of foreground space. It’s very prominent. The composition/framing feels awkward. He’s so close up in the frame. And, even though the houses and car are intentionally out of focus, they feel like they’re invading his space instead of adding background texture. Though it’s a portrait, it might not have been a bad idea to try a landscape (horizontal) shot instead of the portrait (vertical) orientation. Enough to include the wad of dough but less shirt. And also maybe a different angle allowing a longer view which would have created a less claustrophobic sense of space.

Agree with Sam about the shirt being blown out and that does detract to some extent. As for the amount of space it occupies, I think probably that couldn't be helped. I mean that's what the guy was wearing. The composition looks fine to me. In fact I think probably (given the subject) that's the only way it could've been composed. You maybe could've blurred the car a little more, but I don't think it would've made much difference. I also like the contrast. I do think that if you could've toned down the shirt a little it would've made a difference.

 

As for the technical info regarding the camera, film and lens. I haven't a clue what you're talking about (G).

Edited September 30, 2020 by MrAndMrsIzzy

As for the amount of space it occupies, I think probably that couldn't be helped. I mean that's what the guy was wearing.

I didn’t suggest he wear a different shirt. Of course, that’s what the guy was wearing. You often have to work with what you’ve got. Do you disagree that shooting in a horizontal instead of vertical orientation and taking a step or two back would have given the shirt less space? Anyway, that and not a change of clothing was my suggestion.

Thanks for the comments, guys.

 

I was a little miffed that the shirt was so blown out, I shot a pile of photos at this site (of the car), and all are fine. I intentionally left the car in as background because that's what I had been shooting all along anyway, this guy was a side-show (in a manner of speaking). SO in terms of a "story", the car was really the story and this guy stepped (seemingly) out of a time machine, adding to the story (my version of the whole thing anyway). Had I shot this horizontally, I wouldn't have gotten the bundles of cash- which I really only saw as I was snapping the shutter.

 

I don't shoot people very much but this guy was too much and I loved his whole bit he had going on. Kind of a moving target but he did hold still for a few seconds! I had metered this scene with my phone app. I'm NOT a master of metering, tho- it's definitely something I'd like to know more about.

Anyway, I cropped the shot a little to reduce the overpowering element of the shirt. I've been watching a fair number of. films lately, and a couple nights ago while viewing something, I was struck by the way cinematographers will reduce depth of field to focus on the primary subject/person- yet include either full backgrounds or elements of background prominently in their shot. I realized that I tend to do this in my photography, like this shot, in particular, could just be a still from a film, plucked out of the moving reel.

 

Thinking backwards about some of my photos over the years, this is something I've often done. I suppose if I had to put it into words, I''d assign a "cinematic" quality to this shot and to my other shots that are similar, with the background playing a somewhat prominent role in the still photo. Maybe it's not really "conventional" in the classic sense of photographic composition, but hey- it's what I do. As I am completely "untrained" or properly "schooled" in photography, I make this sh*t up as I amble down this pathway. I feel generally pretty good about my photos, and I feel like I'm developing (apologies for the pun) my own style. Well, I hope so anyway.

 

Izzy, this camera is a 1970s camera that was given to me- made behind the Iron Curtain in East Germany. It's kind of "well used" although I'm the only one that's used it any time lately. The lens is a pretty widely celebrated vintage lens. I'm only just getting to know the camera and it surprises me with each roll of film I run through it.

 

BUT thanks again for the commentary, I really appreciate it.

 

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by Ricochetrider

I appreciate the inclusion of a fair amount of background in order to add to the narrative. My comment was actually asking for possibly more background via a longer shot which I think would have given you more of the cinematic character you’re looking for as well as a less claustrophobic sense of overall space. White tee-shirts in bright sun can be tough. A good challenge, though. Good learning experience.

Gotcha Sam. I see what you mean by giving it more space, I’ll try to keep it in mind going forward.

 

Many thanks for your input!

Even more than the blown-out shirt (and hair), I have problems with the underexposed face:

I didn’t suggest he wear a different shirt. Of course, that’s what the guy was wearing. You often have to work with what you’ve got. Do you disagree that shooting in a horizontal instead of vertical orientation and taking a step or two back would have given the shirt less space? Anyway, that and not a change of clothing was my suggestion.

Sorry about the confusion regarding the shirt and "that's what the guy was wearing". What I was referring to was the vertical-vs-horizontal format. I do think vertical format (for this particular image) works better than horizontal

 

Aside from that I noticed in the two reposts some of the bottom from the original was cropped off. I do think maybe a little less might make for a better comp, but it does work.

Edited September 30, 2020 by MrAndMrsIzzy

blown out shirt does not bother me. just effective negative space, with no distracting detail.

Aside from that I noticed in the two reposts some of the bottom from the original was cropped off. I do think maybe a little less might make for a better comp, but it does work.

 

"maybe a little less" As in less cropped off

I don’t see the critiques on this page as being about technical stuff. For me, the tee-shirt, the complexion, the composition are aesthetic issues.

 

As to a photographer’s motivations, I generally avoid those in favor of looking at intentions. Intentions are about goals or purposes and are about what the finished product would achieve. Motivations are the psychological reasons for doing what we do, often based on the character, history, or makeup of the person in question. That tends to require much more than can be gleaned in Internet dialogue. It’s why discussing others’ motivations is often considered ad hominem.

 

An example of an intention is shooting horizontally to include the cash in the photo.

Had I shot this horizontally, I wouldn't have gotten the bundles of cash.

—Ricochetrider

Another intention might be exposing a certain way in order to flatter a subject...

 

An example of a motivation is “he shoots homeless people out of a sense of guilt.”

 

As to flattering one’s subject, there are times when it works. In many instances, though, it’s hollow and a missed opportunity which could have delved deeper.

Flattery is a kind of bad money, to which our vanity gives us currency.

—Francois de La Rochefoucauld

RicochetR, I have seen your work grow over the last few years. The images that stand out for me are your (mostly B+W) straight uncomplicated shots, documentary in feel. There is a down to earth style i like that seems to be emerging. I understand that portraiture has not been a primary focus for you and that you responded spontaneously on this one. The metering of your scene feels as if you were caught off guard... with no time to meter the guy? perhaps you had your settings established for the car you were preparing to shoot? ... or making quick adjustments ( based on experience) without referring back to the meter.

Attention to Tonality(ies).

The overexposure dominates this photo. The shirt the hair the car & the sky all wash out. The eye is drawn to the light areas normally but here it won-t let go for long. The under exposed (in processing?) face makes his nose shine and adds an over dramatized look that I don't think is needed. The character, chain, low cut tee, expression, the Hudson and money narrative are plenty to carry this photo.

inoneeye,

Thanks for checking in and for the compliment. I did not meter this guy, I had in fact been shooting the car- most shots of which are IMO pretty nice- well exposed certainly. Good call, and yep- this shot was totally spur of the moment. SO to address Ludmilla's comments, she's correct, here, thinking more on the matter after reading everyone's opinions and critiques- I get it. I'm still high on the overall experience with the guy tho and with the car too. Here's another from this "shoot"- it has its imperfections too.

 

Alright!!!! Definitely a classic. Old in-line 8 (judging from the hood anyway). Like the way you caught the highlights and shadows. Vintage car. Vintage house. Classic!

Here are a handful of shots from this shoot. I'm posting them not for critique per se, but to show how my exposure was going This P 30 film I think has a tendency towards this sort of particular look, but in my (hopefully humble) estimation, I was doing OK, judging with what I got here

 

 

 

 

 

In the past couple years, I've done reasonably well in terms of hits vs misses in my exposures. In the past month however, I've blown more than a few shots. I've been thinking about this and I believe it's coming down to my not fully understanding exactly what I'm doing- shooting in some situations, I can totally meter and go- BUT toss in some elements like this guy's white shirt & hair against a bright hazy sky- or in another instance, a bright white aluminum aircraft against the same sky (example below), and this s where my knowledge of metering & exposure shows its thin spots. You guys see what I shoot, much of it happens outdoors. I tend to get cocky (probably like anyone) with just enough knowledge to be a nuisance! :-) I don't know enough to pull off a shot like the one of the guy, or the one of this plane- but that doesn't slow me down or stop me from taking the shot! ha ha ha. Here is an area where I obviously need to learn more about what I'm doing! I. have to say too, that my Voigtlander R3m has a meter in it which I use for sure. I messed around with some shots a fe weeks ago shooting just under & over zero (ideal) and lost some shots doing so. Maybe I could have pushed/pulled or whatever but I basically meter and shoot everything at box speed and have it developed thusly. Mixing it up like shooting above or below and pushing or pulling is too far out of my comfort range. I'm more trying to nail it straight up for now- and can work on all that later in life.

 

BTW, I'm shooting a bunch of slower speed films. This P 30, I set the ISO at 50, same for the plane- shot on Ilford Pan F Plus 50. I like the results I'm getting for the most part with each stock. This was probably my 3rd roll of P30 and I've shot bunch of the Pan F Plus. Would a faster film (like say, Tri X 400) maybe have been appropriate for these sorts of lighting conditions? Or is there a way with any film no matter what it is?

 

I am shooting quite a lot right this second, too- we had a holiday weekend on Cape Cod, I had 5 rolls from around that time period, then shot vintage drag racing last weekend and am going this weekend to shoot vintage motorcycles. Mostly I'm shooting this Ilford and the P30 in Black & white, in 120 I'm shooting Ektar 100 and Provia 100f for color and in 35mm color, currently I'm shooting Cinestill 50D. Because I don't wish to run out of film film this weekend, I bought some Tri-X 400 from the local camera shop. Which is pretty far from what I have been shooting.

 

 

 

Anyway thanks very much to all of you for your critique, commentary, & contributions thus far. I do have some. other images to submit for critique, so watch this space!

 

Hi Tom,

 

As an amateur photographer, my primary interest is in 'people/street photography' rather than photos of Landscapes or 'things'. So for me personally, this photo of this dude with his cash in hand is (potentially) much more interesting than your other shots of cars. Yes, his hair and T-shirt are unfortunately blown way out. I fully agree with [uSER=10955656]@Ludmilla[/uSER]'s question on why - in this day and age - you would deliberately choose to use an old film camera to capture 'street photos'.

 

But Kudo's for your engagement with this dude, and your composition.The photo would potentially (IMHO) have been a great 'street photo'! Only the unfortunate overexposure detracts from this.

 

If it was mine, it has so much potential value that I would play around with it in PP to figure out how I could compensate for the overexposure (blown out whites). For example (in Photoshop) by:

- color blending in masked off-white color layers over the blown-out white areas

- luminosity blending in masked (and resized) similar photos to add structure to blown-out white areas; even blending a luminosity layer with gaussian blurred 'shadows' would improve the blown-out areas a lot

 

I wouldn't invest so much time and effort in PP for a photo unless I felt that it had great potential but 'technical shortcomings'. IHMO this photo falls into this category. The photo is IHMO - potentially - a great 'street photo'. If you can find a way in PP of reducing its technical shortcomings, you could improve its visual impact. Whether you choose to do this depends largely on your 'photographic ethics'. Some photographers maintain that the shot as taken (perhaps with minor adjustments) is the only 'true photography'. Others - including myself - focus on the envisioned final image. Using whatever PP is necessary to achieve that,.

 

Best wishes, Mike

 

 

OK so the other day, I was shooting this old Hudson, seen in the background here. This dude comes out of a pizza shop across the street and begins talking to me in heavily accented English, asking about the car, looking at my camera, etc. He circles the car with me as I shoot and I mean we're talking for about 15-20 minutes. Super nice guy. Finally, as I'm digging his look and just his overall "thing", I asked him if I can shoot his picture and only as I framed this shot did I realize he's holding bundles of cash money!

 

I know his white shirt is a little blown out. I did make some adjustments, to light, levels, & curves. Stuff I typically do to my film scans. Please let me know what you think of the shot. This was shot on my new-to-me Praktica LTL East German camera with its 50mm Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar lens on Ferrania P30 b&w film.

 

I'll spare y'all photos of the car! ;-)

 

Thanks in advance!

Tom

 

 

 

[ATTACH=full]1358872[/ATTACH]

I fully agree with [uSER=10955656]@Ludmilla[/uSER]'s question on why - in this day and age - you would deliberately choose to use an old film camera to capture 'street photos'.

History can be such a strong motivator and provide so much visceral inspiration.

 

Why do many contemporary musicians still know the classics, often covering them? Why are there orchestras dedicated to playing on original instruments? Why have some respected film directors of today made black and white movies when they have color at their disposal? Why do I use my mom’s old less-than-sharp scissors regularly?

 

The question can be turned around about 180 degrees. Why don’t you understand?

 

So much goes into decision-making for artists and/or craftspeople on what tools they use, from input inspiration to output results. There’s nostalgia, there may be the desire for a certain grain, a particular lens effect, a certain feel in the hands or connection to the past.

 

Why, why, why is an important enough question. And it brings something to mind that can be even more important, especially when talking about others’ choices ...

 

Why not?

Each to their own, is the way I see things.

 

I shoot film, mostly on old cameras. Much of what I prefer to shoot is old stuff- motorcycles and cars and pretty much anything with a motor. I also like to document my travels by photographing places and aspects of places I visit. I’m trying to shoot more people these days and I’m getting comfortable in asking to photograph folks.

 

This particular camera, an East German built Praktica LTL with a 50mm Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar lens was given to me out of the blue by a person I never met. The camera belonged to his father, an English military man, who bought the camera in Soviet era Poland via black market connections. Why wouldn’t I shoot it!

 

I have a digital camera. It almost never leaves the house. I’m just not feeling it these days. I’m completely OK with not having every shot work out. I take it as simply part of the magic of the process. A process that I find personally fulfilling.

 

You guys, Mike & Ludmilla, aren’t film shooters. I get that. I am tho and there are more than a few forum members who do shoot film.

 

This weekend I was surrounded by photographers who I’m getting to know thru certain vintage car & bike events. A few of us shoot film, some on really old cameras with one guy shooting antique large format Graflex cameras, using 100 year old lenses. Hanging out with all these other folks and shooting these events is so much fun for me. I’ve been into photography for a time now and haven’t been this energized about it ever. I’m generally really happy with the results I’m getting.

 

Mike, to your point about manipulating this photo, that is way beyond my rudimentary PP capabilities. I'm not at all opposed to such manipulation although these are skills I do not currently have at my disposal.

 

I’m seeing this as a teachable moment. I’ve always needed to slow down and this is perfect example of exactly that- me rushing through something and it could have been better if I’d taken a little more time.

 

Again, thanks so much to all of you for your critique and commentary. Really appreciate it.

I have a digital camera. It almost never leaves the house. I’m just not feeling it these days. I’m completely OK with not having every shot work out. I take it as simply part of the magic of the process. A process that I find personally fulfilling.

That's all that counts. Personally, I no longer shoot film because I am fully aware of its shortcomings - missed opportunities like the portrait shoot would have me toss the film camera aside if I actually had been inclined to pick one up.

I’m seeing this as a teachable moment. I’ve always needed to slow down and this is perfect example of exactly that- me rushing through something and it could have been better if I’d taken a little more time.

Not the lesson I would take away from this - any camera with a decent exposure meter and on auto setting would have prevented the mistakes you made. Slowing down can be quite helpful to get a better composition or to investigate a subject more thoroughly - "wasting" more time than necessary on the correct exposure settings only distracts from that process.

RR can shoot with whatever antiquated equipment he likes but must be prepared for the odd guffaw when it goes wrong :)

Everything RR has said in this thread indicates he’s prepared for things to go wrong and to learn from them. I don’t get a hint of his being negatively impacted by the guffaws of the guffawing.

any camera with a decent exposure meter and on auto setting would have prevented the mistakes you made. Slowing down can be quite helpful to get a better composition or to investigate a subject more thoroughly - "wasting" more time than necessary on the correct exposure settings only distracts from that process.

Manually exposing can be a good skill to develop, especially if someone wants to stray from often uninspired “perfect” auto exposures and, instead, get experience varying exposures to expressive and creative effect and for situations where it’s deadly to rely on auto settings. “Preventing mistakes” was not the goal I had as a beginner. It was more important to me to learn from my mistakes and to be willing to risk making them. I have more facility with exposure now because of the shots I missed and learned from. Amazingly, I’ve still got plenty of keepers even from those early years. A few more keepers wouldn’t come as close in importance to me as all the skill I developed through making mistakes and growing from the process.

Anyway, Ricochet, one observation I have and that you’ve partially addressed as well is what may be a somewhat isolated concentration on exposing only for your main subject. While that’s where you’re often going to “weight” your exposure, it can be helpful to give more consideration to background, sky, deep shadows, and other standout elements, etc. I do this by spot metering extremes and then using the know-how I’ve developed to adjust my exposure using those honed instincts I got by making manual mistakes. The bushes behind the car in a couple of those shots have become a graphic black, which can draw the eye as much as a solid white tee-shirt. You seem to lean, as Inoneeye already addressed, toward a documentary rather than an over-stylized or highly contrasty look. So, even in naturally high contrast bright sun and deep shade, those graphic solid blacks and whites seem to work against you. Getting those extremes to be within a finer range of perceptible depth and detail will ultimately enhance the look of your subject if for no other reason than the viewer’s eye not being led away from it. Sometimes, paying attention to parts of the photo that are not the subject may actually benefit the subject more than focusing all your exposure decisions directly on it.

Manually exposing can be a good skill to develop, especially if someone wants to stray from often uninspired “perfect” auto exposures and, instead, get experience varying exposures to expressive and creative effect and for situations where it’s deadly to rely on auto settings.

Agreed - coming from someone whose primary cameras for two decades were the manual film cameras Nikon FM/FM2. Can we agree that no method of exposure metering would have saved that portrait? The face is underexposed despite the fact that the shirt and hair are blown out - exposing the face properly would have resulted in even more overexposure of the shirt and hair; this is a situation that called for some kind of fill-flash or at the very least a reflector to direct some light towards the face. Or asking the subject to turn around and thereby drastically changing the lighting situation.

 

It was more important to me to learn from my mistakes

Which is a lot easier when using a digital camera - instant feedback rather than the old cumbersome method of jotting down the exposure settings and analyzing the film when it came back from developing (often weeks later). If done commercially, then analyzing the prints was not of much use - the lab may already have corrected the most glaring exposure issues - and analyzing the film requires some experience too.

 

The bushes behind the car in a couple of those shots have become a graphic black, which can draw the eye as much as a solid white tee-shirt. You seem to lean, as Inoneeye already addressed, toward a documentary rather than an over-stylized or highly contrasty look. So, even in naturally high contrast bright sun and deep shade, those graphic solid blacks and whites seem to work against you.

Could this be the film itself - though admittedly I think that the shots you refer to are overall underexposed? I am not familiar with P30 - the B&W film I used most were Pan F, FP4 and HP5. And later XP2 (though the vast majority of my film shooting was on slide film).

a lot easier

My sense is that Ricochet would balance “ease” with other factors that are important to him. Not everyone, including me sometimes, chooses what’s easier, especially when other factors come into the equation.

My sense is that Ricochet would balance “ease” with other factors that are important to him.

You're most likely right - though when presenting an image for critique it is judged by the results of one's effort, not by the effort itself. And all I am saying is that had he used a digital camera, he would have made the same mistake, realize it immediately and take corrective action - giving him the image he now does not have while still providing him the learning experience. But I don't want to be drawn into a debate of film vs digital - they have never interested me and I have made my choice a long time ago.