Is this photo here a problematic picture?

[alfie wang]

One of the engagement photos I have took is my personal favorite but I think that I didn't do a good job focusing the lens on Sarah's face because her earrings are out of focus when viewed with a loupe. Should I discard this photo from my collection or retain? Is it cool to have your subject slightly out of focus?

 

<p>

 

The photo is at this particular <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/462780&size=lg">link</a>.

 

<p>

 

Thanks for your feedback and help.

 

<p>

 

sincerely,

Alfie

[margaret]

Alfie, it is your photo, your collection and your sweetie - keep it!

[giles_poilu]

Alfie,

 

<p>

 

Although it can be difficult to see in a scanned photo I believe the

problem here is camera shake not poor focusing. There is a general

un-sharpness across the frame not just Sarah's earring. Look at the

cat's ID disc, the shaky writing is more evidence of this.

 

<p>

 

If you used Fuji 160 the probable shutter speed in this light at F2

must have been around 1/4 to 1/8 - difficult to hold steady!

 

<p>

 

Certainly don't discard the photo. It doesn't matter; if the photo

is your favourite THAT is important. Many of the most famous

photographs ever taken were technically incorrect but the MOMENT they

captured - that is the important aspect. Just remember Capa's D-day

pictures, the darkroom boys fried them, but they are all the better

for it!

[alfie wang]

Thanks for your advice, Giles. I thought that it could have been

camera shake. I guess that the Leica M6 would have been a lot more

ideal considering that I could have handheld that around 1/8 and 1/15

speeds :)

 

<p>

 

Alfie

[joshroot]

Some of the best photos I've ever seen have been technically "bad".

[sait_akkirman]

As already mentioned, it looks like camera shake, but so what,

you have captured a lovely moment. Nice cat too. I'd keep it.

[eve_hessler]

Come on, guys -- stop patronizing Alfie. The truth is, these photos

are awful. There's no composition (too much ceiling), wayward

lighting (racoon shadows across the eyes and nose), inept focusing,

and obvious camera shake. Sorry to tell you, Alfie, that a

disposable would have produced better results. You need to learn

basics and stop wasting your time and money on high end gear. I

suggest you sell your Leicas and get a Pentax K1000. Take a basic

photo course with the extra money, and shoot lots of film until you

get it right. Don't mean to be harsh, but this is getting absurd. I

wonder -- is it possible that this guy is having us on?

[alfie wang]

I did use the Pentax K1000. It was not a solid camera to be honest. I

had a HARDER time focusing the camera with its dim viewfinder.

Geewhiz at least my older Leicaflex can deliver the performance for

the long run.

 

<p>

 

About composition, I don't take formal portraits at all. I shoot by

instinct. Why spend a zillion dollars learning photography in

classes. I feel like natural photojournalistic candid and honest

photograph is the best. I don't like to flatter my subjects with

fancy lighting but shoot at ambient. After all, the point of shooting

pictures for me is to capture the image and emotion and natural

aspects of humanity without any intermediate foils.

 

<p>

 

And NO, I don't plan to take any professional photographic classes.

Capa, Cartier-Bresson, etc. etc. didn't have a formal education in

photography but in life and that can't be attained with a degree.

 

<p>

 

sincerely,

Alfie

[hufg_jass]

Practice makes perfect

[richardvanle]

Are you trying to equate yourself with HCB or Capa? I hope you're

not. True, they didn't have formal degrees, but that has nothing to

do with Eve's comments. I don't want to sound mean spirited, but

I think you really should think about taking a photo class. Your

photographs say nothing. Obviously you are attached to them

because they are of your fiance. Regardless, I think you need to

learn how to develop your eye, learn some of the basic rules of

composition, design, space, color and lighting when it comes to

photography. You need to get a little structure. You can't break

rules and go by instinct unless you've already learned the rules

and understand when and where and how to apply (or not) them.

Of course, all of this is moot if you're born gifted like HCB or

Capa. Yes, Alfie, even unposed, available-light photography

requires an understand of things you would learn in a photo

class. Look any of the work by the Magnum photographers, for

example. I know we all love our Leicas and camera equipment.

And you seem to be really caught up in buying lots of equipment.

But it seems money spent on film and classes would be more

valuable. You need to ask yourself I am doing this just to join the

cult of Leica and have something to fetish over OR am i doing

this to learn how to become a photographer. Cause in the end,

the great photographers have used Leicas, Contaxes, Nikons,

Canons and even Holgas. The equipment does guaranteee

success. That's just my two cents.

[andrew n.bra hrefhttp]

<I> Capa, Cartier-Bresson, etc. etc. didn't have a formal education in

photography but in life and that can't be attained with a degree</I><P>

 

This is very true. However, you have a <U>long</U> way to travel

before you get to their level.<P>

 

Shoot more film. Learn to throw out 90% of your shots. Be you own

most hostile and unforgiving critic... and then maybe one day, a long

time from now, you'll create images you're happy with <I>and</I> which

will make others go "wow - how did he do that!"

[pete_su4]

i would throw this frame away.

 

<p>

 

the focus might be on, but you really can't tell because the whole

thing is soft. the composition isn't all that compelling, everything

being dead center, but the background looking strange and

crooked.

 

<p>

 

and, who needs another cat picture?

 

<p>

 

just MHO.

[john_c.]

Dear Eve: Why don't you tell us "All About" yourself, so that all of us

here at the Leica forum can understand why you're so evil and petty?

And by the way, don't try anything with ME; my friends call me

"Addison"...

[john_fleetwood]

Throwing out 90%. That's good. I throw out 95%.

[john_chan2]

C'mon, stop that Eve!

 

<p>

 

Intelligent,

Euphemistic,

Critical,

Suspicious,

Pessimistic....

 

<p>

 

All the qualities I'm looking for in a woman. Truly someone you can

proudly take home to mom.

 

<p>

 

Oh please... don't tempt my weak soul.

 

<p>

 

;-)

[eve_hessler]

John,

"All About ..." myself? Well, for a start, I'm a professional

photojournalist. EH is my pseudonym. I'm 38 years old, live in NYC,

shoot under my real name for: The Washington Post; The Times of

London (and its Sunday Magazine); AP; and Life (until it went bust

two years ago). I teach photography every other year at The New

School, and have won various awards which I won't bother to list. I

shoot M6s and favor extremes: the 24mm and 90mm. Sorry, for

professional reasons I can't reveal my real name. Suffice it to say

that I enjoy photography and wonder why guys like Alfie are

preoccupied with equipment at the cost of their images.

 

<p>

 

Incidentally, Alfie, I studied photography for years (repeat:

years). I studied lighting, composition, printing, history -- the

art and science of this craft. Most of my colleagues have studied as

well. Your approach is juvenile. You seem to think the gear will

admit you into the rank of professionals. The price of admission is

much greater.

 

<p>

 

One more thing. I still shoot with the K1000, just for the fun of

it. And one of my K1000 shots won a World Press Award in 1998.

[fergus_hammond]

Simultaneously, a photograph can be:</p>

<p>1. Special to the photographer (or subject,

etc).</p>

<p>2. Bad.</p>

<p>By "bad", I mean bad technically

and, more importantly, bad in everyone else's opinion. I have

no emotional connection to this photograph (I haven't met Sarah or

the cat) and I think it's rather foul. Obviously, Alfie should keep

the photo because it's special to him - in fact, I'm not even sure

why he'd ask. However, for him to say that taking a photography

class is a waste of time is, well, surprising. You don't need to

"spend a zillion dollars" and, even if you do, it's far

better to spend it on a class (and film) than a bunch of gear. </p>

<p>Critiquing is a two-way-street (particularly on

the web). Here's a stinky photo of my own that I just couldn't bear

to toss in the trash. It's a bad photograph technically and I'm sure

just about everyone else will agree but I still like it:</p>

<p><a

href="http://www.dingoboy.com/0112/images/misc/111901hammonds.jpg">ht

tp://www.dingoboy.com/0112/images/misc/111901hammonds.jpg</a></p>

<p>Here's a photograph that I took on a cheap

digital P&S:</p>

<p><a href="(Empty

http://www.dingoboy.com/9912/images/122999tracks.jpg">http://www.ding

oboy.com/9912/images/122999tracks.jpg</a></p>

<p>I knew this was good when I took it,

I knew it was good when I saw it on the screen after and it's

still one of my favorite photographs. More importantly, it was the

photograph that made me wonder why 98% of my photos were very

average and 2% were good - to me and more objectively, to others.

Hence my photography class. Alfie seems to believe that

understanding the more technical issues of photography would

interfere with the "art". I think the opposite. It's

just a fact that a portion of photography is about technical

aspects. Understand these and your photographs will be better. </p>

<p><a href="(Empty

http://www.dingoboy.com/9912/images/122999tracks.jpg">http://www.ding

oboy.com/9912/images/122999tracks.jpg</a></p>

<p>Ok, off my soapbox now ;-)</p>

<p>Fergus</p>

[richardvanle]

Eve: I don't think a listing of your CV was necessary. Your

comments have been spot-on, regardless of whether you are a

pro or not.

[fergus_hammond]

<p>Opps; let's try that again: <a

href="http://www.dingoboy.com/9912/images/122999tracks.jpg">http://ww

w.dingoboy.com/9912/images/122999tracks.jpg</a></p>

[wilhelm]

I'd say that you should spend a lot more time photographing, and a

lot less time writing. It would improve both occupations greatly.

[fergus_hammond]

<p>I think Eve's comments are reasonable. She's being blunt but

I get the impression that she'd be the same way in person.

I don't agree with John's comments about her being evil or

petty. And I think she's justified in posting her

"CV": it was asked for, after all. Personally, I like

this kind of discussion on this site - it's not the crazy, out-of-

control flaming that's so common on the Internet (no one has been

compared to a Nazi yet!) but there's room for honest discussion.</p>

<p>Fergus</p>

[giles_poilu]

Eve, I really fail to see how I was being patronising. I have

answered Alfie's question with a fair, honest and polite statement.

In my opinion your obvious intent to justify your advice by listing

your many achievements and qualifications is rather vulgar.

[karl_georg_wolf]

ALFIE, do not be diappointed, but I really feel you better collect

your photos as private collection and show them as prints to your

close friends who are as experienced in photography as you are.

 

<p>

 

At first I also thought Eve was too harsh on you, because I´am a fan

of your direct approach to the medium. But right now, it is late and

there is a full moon in parts of central Europe, I´am supporting Eve.

 

<p>

 

Perhaps things look different different tomorrow morning, but for the

time being, sell your LEICA IIIf think about photography classes,

please !!!!

 

<p>

 

Best wishes

[j.d]

Maybe Eve is one of those middle-aged online gender benders. :)

Seriously, though, how would shooting for a newspaper, ap, etc

qualify one person to be "God" on photography? I mean, all those news

people, do is point a fully auto F5 in the general direction of

something with a 200mm lens and hope that something comes out.

Besides, the revoluntaries of photography have all come from the art

world.

 

<p>

 

just my two cents.. J.D

[richardvanle]

Fergus: I know someone asked for it, but why should Eve have to

list her credentials? It's nobody's business. Should everyone list

their CV? Her comments are accurate and that's enough for me.

She's right-- Alfie, needs to stop worrying about his equipment

and more about his photos. Every other post seems to include a

comment about how if he had a Leica M6/R6/R8/new

screen/better film/whatever, the picture would have been better.

What's the point of using a Leica (or any other high end

equipment, for that matter) if you're not going to think about what

you're doing when you press the shutter release? I mean, Eve's

right. The photos look like they were taken with a disposable

camera. And then to compare oneself to HCB...