Leica Glow ?

[marc_bergman1]

Raid,

 

Why is it time to move on? You obviously love your family. Why not take the better pictures of them? I should note I got here too late to see these pictures.

 

Mike, Brad, and Jeff give some of the best critiques. They also put their works up on the web for others to comment. What they want from others is an honest critique. It is what helps them improve.

 

I remember taking a summer photography at a local college. The class was filled with art majors picking up an elective. Many of them had trouble initially with their cameras and with work in the darkroom. It was amazing to see their work improve over several weeks.

 

Where I really benefited was in their critiques of my work. They were honest and could be harsh. They weren't being mean. They took art seriously.

 

It can seem harsh when a bunch of strangers are commenting on your pictures, especially when it is pictures of your family. Why not take advantage of this opportunity to improve one's photography? We all need it.

[bernard_korites]

When I want to be assured of an enthusiastic, happy smile of approval for my pics, I show them to my dog.

[vivek iyer]

"Either way, I like the results. Hope you like the photos too."

 

With an imposition like that it was wrong of poor Mike Dixon to offer any "unkind" comments/critiques (whether or not they were justified at all).

 

Raid, Instead of being a bit delicate, you should explicitly ask for appreciation, next time. Dropping any questions (such as "Leica Glow") would spare any critiques, IMO.

[icuneko]

<This forum reminds me of first grade sometimes.>

 

 

Now there is a critical comment. First grade, never! More like second. ;)

[nathaniel_pearson]

This little thread sure stirred up the teapot, eh? Though I think it's easier to spot

defensiveness in others than in oneself, I found Mike's critique blunt, informed, and

potentially useful, rather than hostile. Interesting to read his followup too, in which

he hinted at some of the factors that go into his own image-making (which I think

tends to be among the finest regularly posted to this site).

 

That said, I disagreed with Mike (and others after him) in that I found the first image

(of Raid's wife) more arresting than the other two. Perhaps this was due to its greater

size or to the bolder, slightly fizzy colors in it, as well as the curiously small core of

sharpness in her face. Now that they're all unclickable, it is that first image that

sticks most strongly in my mind, however nice the lighting might have been in the

second one.

[eliot_rosen1]

The images are not opening up for me either. I just get the squares with the red x inside. I don't see Mike's comments as hostile. Since he is an accomplished photographer, I would take what he says seriously.

[paul t]

Hey Raid, imagine if you had an agent? You'd have to PAY him to get

comments like that! (Mine, faced with a crucial piece of work, used the phrase,

'mmm, it's just over half-way there'.). He made me to re-do my second attempt

too. <p>

If we want to be good, we need guys like this.

[michael s.]

I'm here late, but speaking only for myself, if Mike Dixon wants to comment on one of my pictures, I'm all ears.<div></div>

[tom h.]

I can't see them either. And as much as Mike, Jeff, and Doug

have truly, truly TRULY annoyed the tits off me here on the fora

from time to time, they've each demonstrated long term, well

formed, and GENUINE photographic ability on a regular and

lengthy basis. Plus, I think you should be more realistic about

your photos - you really should like them enough that you don't

care what other people think, and share them light-heartedly-

plus, be aware that you can't score a winner every time.If you

never lose, how can you ever win?I have no idea what "Leica

glow" could ever possibly contribute to improving a photograph.

I've NEVER seen one where it has .<div></div>

[pensacolaphoto]

I wasn't going to comment anymore on my own posting, but allow me to clarify that I do accept constructive criticism when offered and that I am not too receptive to comments that seem to be made in an unfriendly manner. Mike's first comment is in my view not constructive whereas his second is. I have never made an unfriendly comment on anyone's photos ... ever. Either offer good tips (as some of you have done) or try to be polite about things. When it comes to photos of my own family I take thing seriously, and that's why I have removed them. There was no request for a critique. I see some type of a "glow" in the second photo (maybe not when scanned and seen on monitors), and that was the real reason for the posting. An answer that defines the "Leica Glow" and pointing out there wasn't any would have been sufficient. I am not out to offend anybody here in any way. I already have emailed Mike.

[Allen Herbert]

I don't see the photos.

 

Me neither. However, he has done some nice work in my opinion...so let's be a bit kind.

 

Hey, at least he takes and post photos.......

 

A bit of crit should not upset anyone...no need to be too sensitive. .

[pensacolaphoto]

Thank you Allen.

[doris_chan]

"I wasn't going to comment anymore on my own posting, but allow me to clarify that I do

accept constructive criticism when offered and that I am not too receptive to comments

that seem to be made in an unfriendly manner"

 

Raid, has it crossed your mind that maybe you've set yourself up for criticism

- constructive or otherwise - because you've repeatedly made it clear that you're far more

than the typical forum amateur with an interest in Leica cameras:

 

"I have plenty of knowledge and experience on teaching photography.....I have over 25

years experience in photography.....I will focus on my expertise area (quality control) and

photography....a photographer with published photo essays and many award winning

exhbits, I am quite confident about my ability to deliver.....How do you infer that I am not

a photographer? Has it occured to you that a person can be both a professor and a

professional photographer?.....By the way, my photos are marketed in Asia by Mega Press

(one of the most prestigious stock agencies in Japan).....I have over 25 years of experience

in photography....I will give my students excellent training in photography.....I have done

professional work for the past years and I would not be represented by a prestigous stock

agency as Mega Press if my work is lousy"

 

Given your apparently illustrious past you really shouldn't

be too surprized if people hold you to a higher standard than the rest of us.

[mike dixon]

<i>I wasn't going to comment anymore on my own posting, but allow me to clarify that I do accept constructive criticism when offered and that I am not too receptive to comments that seem to be made in an unfriendly manner. Mike's first comment is in my view not constructive whereas his second is.</i><P>

Raid, in the past, you've made a point of emphasizing your experience as a photographer. Again, all the points in my second post were basic things that are listed in most beginner's guides on taking portraits. I assumed that you would know them. It was an incorrect assumption, but it wasn't an unreasonable one.<P>

Because I assumed you already knew these things, I figured the reason you hadn't taken them into account was because of your emotional attachment to the subjects. That's why I asked what <i>you</i> believed was good about the images (a question that remains unanswered). If you had devoted some thought to examining your own images, you could have figured out their weaknesses yourself.<P>

When presented with criticism of my images, I consider a list of possibilities:<P>

1) The picture simply isn't very good, and the criticism is quite valid.<P>

2) The person making the criticism is evaluating the image for something other than it's intended purpose. [Though Al K. implied that I was doing this, it should have been obvious from my comments about the second image that I was, in fact, evaluating them as pleasing shots of your family and not as artwork intended for museum walls.]<P>

3) The person making the criticism has fundamentally different tastes than I do.<P>

4) The person making the criticism has some kind of personal issue with me, and they're attacking my images rather than attacking me directly.<P>

I've already asked (indirectly) why you immediately assumed that 4) was the case, but I received no reply. Do you assume your images are so wonderful and have such universal appeal that the only possible reason for criticism would be a personal grudge?<P>

Thanks to everyone who noted that they didn't see my initial post as hostile.<P>

p.s. Raid, I never received an email from you.

[pensacolaphoto]

Mike: I sent it to your website. Check it out.

[gabrielma]

<i>Again, this is all basic, Portrait 101 stuff-</i><BR><BR>

In real life nobody behaves like a model, and the world isn't a studio. This is the sort of stuff that has always made me never ever wanted to take a photography class, nor ever want to be called a "professional" photographer. I like my subjects unposed, my light as-is. Real life isn't "professional", it's real. I think it's a matter of philosophy, in the end. I could very well say that pictures of women in transluscent wet shirts are technically deficient because it's against Shirt-Wearing 101, shirts are just meant to be dry when you wear them. --- It's all relative, and posing implicitly hostile questions as "your shots are mediocre, what do you find appealing about them?" are, well...unprofessional.

[richard jepsen]

Mike Johnson's article (see Skip's Link "Glow" provides the basics on how to the look. I would add that used Ansco 130 paper developer often creates a light print stain with 3 min development on warm black paper.

 

David Vestal is one of my favorite photo magazine author. He currently pens an article in DarkRoom Techniques. He has a wonderful kind, direct, gentle, uncomplicated way of communicating. We need more David Vestals in this world who can effectively guide learners.

[mike dixon]

<i>In real life nobody behaves like a model, and the world isn't a studio. This is the sort of stuff that has always made me never ever wanted to take a photography class, nor ever want to be called a "professional" photographer. I like my subjects unposed, my light as-is.</i><P>

I noted those basic "Portrait 101" guidelines in response to Al's post about the family not wanting dark, arty photos--the point was that two of Raid's shots were still not strong in terms of conventionally pleasing portraits. I'm curious now: if it's unfair to assess the quality of portraits based on the lighting, on the pose, on the expressions and mood, or on how well it engages the viewer, what are we left with?<P>

If you were familiar with my photography, you'd know that, aside from some model portfolio work and paid portraiture, the vast majority of my shots are of unposed people in available light. That was the sensibility with which I approached Raid's shots, taking into account that they were intended as "family reportage" rather than some other genre.<P>

So far, only one person, Nathaniel Pearson, has disagreed with my assessment by noting things he liked about the images. While we may disagree, I certainly respect his effort to articulate his thoughts on the image.

[icuneko]

Mike Dixon's list of possibilities for photo criticism is quite reasonable and comprehensive.

[._._z]

Raid pulled the photos belonging to this thread, but if you look at his portfolio you see

a collection of mostly amateur photos. I haven't followed any earlier discussions

referenced here, but I'm astounded that he apparently teaches photography and

considers himself a pro.

[pensacolaphoto]

Since my main income does not come from photography, I certainly "do not think of myself" as a pro. Secondly, I am not a photography teacher. I teach statistics.

[pensacolaphoto]

How about this .... I had no glow in any of the three photos, and Mike is a nice guy but I misunderstood his comments as hostile. Is this a good way to end this posting or should it go on for another month or so?

[._._z]

Raid apparently forgot the words he wrote (reposted by Doris) in which he calls himself

a pro and a teacher of photography.

[pensacolaphoto]

This is my biography as in photonet:

"biography: I am a Professor in a Department of Mathematics and Statistics at a university in the southern part of the USA. I have been involved in photography since over 20 years. For some reason, I prefer film based photography and I have been avoiding getting into digital photography.I don't believe that I am a collector as my cameras are often inexpensive and I actually use them all. I love the beautiful craftmanship in the older manual cameras like Rolleiflex, Leica, and Canon."

[Tony Rowlett]

Raid, relax! :-) It's sometimes easy to misinterpret things said on the internet, and it looks like that is what has happened here, at least a little. Let's move on now. Keep posting.

 

Baily, shut up already. Don't egg people on. OK?