Critique Please!

[magnus_kling]

Need some input on my pictures. All made with a Leica M6.

http://www.magnuskling.com/norrkop/index.htm

[stuart_richardson]

I am sorry Magnus, but not too many of these excite my interest. In many cases, you seem

to be finding a place of compositional interest, and then just firing the shutter the first

time someone walks into that space. For example, there are several shots of buildings with

people bicycling into the frame. Or shots of a wall with people walking into the frame. I

think I would find these photos more interesting if the people were <i>doing</i>

something, or if they were in some way unusual. I think your photos show that you have

an eye for composition, but it seems to me that in many of these shots you are

squandering it on subject matter that is too mundane. Granted, there is a field of

photography of "daily life", but usually it focuses on the unusual or interesting aspects of

the mundane, whereas most of these just seem to be the mundane aspects of the

mundane. If you find yourself struggling for interesting things to photograph, perhaps try

unusual angles or perspectives. Perhaps moving in close to objects instead of

photographing them all from afar. <P>Of the photographs I found most interesting, they

seemed to be the ones that departed in some way from this static "photographing across

the street" style. Number 34 (43.jpg) is a neat idea and has potential, but the lighting is

bad and the person between the feet is of no real interest. If he or another subject had

been facing the camera, or leaning on the legs or some other more concrete interaction

than just being visible through them while walking by, I think this would be a more

interesting photo. Number 32 (30332) is another one that I think has potential. You have a

different perspective than normal, and you are taking a photograph of some action -- the

flock of birds departing. But on some level, this is still just not quite there. It is a little too

mundane...LOTS of people take shots like this when there is nothing better to shoot.

<P>Number 31 (303.jpg) could also be of great interest, but only if we are closer....the

girl is the only interesting thing in the photo, and she only occupies a small amount of the

space. For this one, you either need a longer lens to clearly capture her expression, or you

need to get closer to the action. This is hard, I know, I for one am very timid, but

sometimes you just need to close in for the sake of the shot. Number 29 (301.jpg) is

another example of this. Good job catching the action of the guy shooting the basket, but

we cannot see his face, the light is bad, and there are people in the way. Either move in or

to the other side so that the action is more clear. In any case, i don't mean to be harsh, but

these are my honest critiques based on the images you provided. I am certainly no savant,

so don't hold that against me, but those were my feelings regarding your photos. I hope

this critique will help you, or at least not offend you. <P>Stuart

[kurt_teerlynck]

The combination of the pictures and the comments by Stuart who took time and did a very good job are very interesting.Thanks to both of you.

[skip_converse]

I really enjoyed viewing your images, Magnus. Kurt's comments were right on. So often we are desparate for images we sell out to whatever passes our viewfinder. I've been there many times, and it can be very depressing. Thanks to both of you for this thread.

[magnus_kling]

Thanks to all for input, especially Stuart.

/Magnus

[john sypal]

I'm kind of digging the breakup of the picture plane in 3 and 4.

 

Number 7 is amazing-- look how at that shape with the man and the tree covering his

head. Nice.

 

11 is also a tricky one. You seem to be interested in playing with the photograph, or at

least working with how things end up looking photographed, rather than trying just to

make a pretty picture of something.

 

Others that "got" me- 24, 25, 26,and 31(!),

 

The "flock of birds" shot is a little boring, but the jet contrail and whatever implication that

might have with the rest of the picture saves it a little bit.

 

Overall I think that this is a good start on a bunch of photographs. You don't really resolve

anything neatly, that is, what we normally would expect to see in a photograph. These

photos don't really tell us about the place they were taken, i.e. they are not in the usual

"Travel Photography" style. They have to me more of a sense of basic familarity with the

place, but it is as though this area is being investigated for the first time through your

camera. I have no idea. Just a thought. These have a cool detachment from both what was

going on in front of you when you raised the camera to your eye, and our basic

expectations. Keep it up!

[ben conover]

Not sure I like many of them but they are certainly good photos otherwise. For me the subject is of most importance.

 

Cheers.

[john sypal]

<p>"Number 31 (303.jpg) could also be of great interest, but only if we are closer....the

girl is the only interesting thing in the photo, and she only occupies a small amount of the

space."</p>

 

<p>"Space Occupation" is not always the best method to make an interesting photograph.

In this

case <a href="http://www.magnuskling.com/norrkop/pages/303.htm">the

photograph</a> works for me because we are allowed to see more than just simply her

expression. Once we add in the look of the boy to our right, and the fact that we can't

exactly see what the girl is reacting to, the photograph becomes something more than just

a record of a look on one person's face. I think it is also iInteresting how the only

actualized people in the shot are children.</p>

<p> Good stuff.</p>

[charles_gravely]

Love the boats in the fog shots!

 

Great thread! I wish I had more to contribute. Since I don't, I decided to pay my $25 bucks. This thread did it for me.

 

I almost have the courage to post a picture of my own.

 

Charles

[working camera]

Magnus,

 

Most look awfully magenta in cast to me. There are some nice shots amongst

them but the strong colour cast diminishes their impact.

 

I?d suggest colour correction in PS and re-upload them.

[mark_dizengoff]

Nice Lomography with M6

[magnus_kling]

What is lomography?

//Magnus

[pensacolaphoto]

It's a start. Work on improving how your photos look after being scanned. This has an impact on how your photos will be perceived by those who view them online. Get closer to your subjects. Even closer. Thanks for posting your work and thanks for constructive criticism to others here.

[gabrielma]

<i>What is lomography? //Magnus</i><BR><BR>

It's his veiled way of saying that you're using your M6 like a cheap Russian Lomo camera.