Please Critique This Photo

[Ricochetrider]

Please give me your opinions about this recently re-found pic. A shot of our friends, from a trip to Cornwall, England a few years ago. Nice flashback! 

Olympus OMD Em1 and the 12-40mm pro lens. 

Thanks very much.

Tom

Edited February 4, 2023 by Ricochetrider

[jordan2240]

On my monitor it looks a bit over-exposed, as there is no definition in the sky at all.  It's framed nicely and you held the camera straight (a skill I never mastered).  Overall it's a nice, colorful vacation snapshot

[samstevens]

1 hour ago, jordan2240 said:

Overall it's a nice, colorful vacation snapshot

Which shows how important a body of work is in viewing individual photos. There's a consistent humility in Ric's somewhat straightforward approach to his subjects which, at least for me and on more exposure to much of his work, has both a lot of respect and an eye for what portrays an often effortless angle on what's in front of the camera. Most vacation snaps lack the consistency of visual approach and the ability to offer the kind of understated humanity Ric often finds.

[dave_thomas8]

It is certainly a nicely framed and colorful vacation memory, I'll bet your friends like it. In line with @jordan2240's comment, looking at the shadows, the softness suggests it was at best a 'hazy sun' sort of day (which I suspect is fairly normal in that part of the world. If doing your own color printing, possibly the contrast or exposure level could be tweaked a little, if not overdone.

I often find it frustrating comparing my own shots to the travel brochures, but few of us have the resources to "oh, stay there a two or three days until the sun comes out!"

Edited February 4, 2023 by dave_thomas8

[Ricochetrider]

Thanks guys. I personally don’t mind the sky being washed out… I usually feel like such an effect in a photo tends to isolate and actually enhance the subject, as seen in another pic taken this same day… rules and mores be damned- I like it! 
 

 
 

 

[Ricochetrider]

@samstevens brother that’s as glowing a critique? a statement? as anyone could ever ask for. Thanks very much for the kind words. I’m grateful, too, for your support and advice over the years. 👍🏼

[hjoseph7]

The couple seems to be part of their environment. If they were placed in the center then they would obviously be the main subjects, but far off in the corner like that, they blend more into the scenery. I like cloudy days because the colors seem to pop better, but they are not popping in this picture for some reason ? Maybe a little bit more contrast would help. Another reason I like cloudy days is because I don't have to play hide-and-seek with the sun.  The only downside is those blown out skies like we see here. Don't worry its not your camera, my Canon 6D tends to the same thing.  I think it has to do with the latitude of Digital cameras...

[Ricochetrider]

I cropped it a bit and changed the aspect ratio to 16:9

[Tony Parsons]

I agree with the trim of the grey roadway at the base, but I feel some of the context is lost by removing the roof line and associated surroundings. As it is, the top of the image just sort of drifts off into nothingness, with no kind of border. Speaking of which, have you thought of putting a 1 or 2 pixel black border round the original image to stop the eye wandering out of the picture ?

Just my half-groat's worth.

 

[mikemorrellNL]

I like this photo - a great location, full of character! I tracked down where it is and the hiking boots don't surprise me 😉.

I read that while the Olympus OM-1 standard saturation is 'modest' it tends to 'push' reds more than other colors. Given the high 'red content' of this photo, you could consider a slight desaturation of the reds.

I like the 16:9 crop because it makes your friends more 'the subject' of the photo (with the cottage as the background). 

Another cropping option might be 4:3 and losing a bit of the foreground and the right-hand side of the photo. My guess is that even without the right hand side of the cottage, there would be enough 'cottage left' to express the scene.

 

[jordan2240]

Years ago when I started the 'post-processing challenge' thread, this is exactly the sort of image I'd had in mind.   Not necessarily an image with a washed-out sky, but one where there were lots of options in post-processing that would still maintain the integrity of the original photo (for example, one might keep the original crop but remove the telephone pole).  In fact, the first image I posted for post-processing ideas had a sky that was washed out, and it was interesting to see how participants edited the photo.  In this particular shot, an interesting sky wouldn't necessarily add anything, but I was merely siting the complete lack of definition as evidence that the pic might have been slightly overexposed.  If the choice was to over-expose the sky in order to properly expose the main subject, you made the correct choice.  But on my monitor, the whole shot looks a bit over-exposed, so that could just be the monitor.  The second shot you provided of the couple works quite well with no background elements.

As for Sam's comment regarding looking at a body of work in order to critique a photo, perhaps that would offer additional perspective, but I tend to see each photo individually, so unless someone wanted a series critiqued, I wouldn't find it useful to examine anything beyond the photo offered.  Of course, if the photographer explained he/she was trying for a specific look, that would certainly impact the critique.

[samstevens]

The original suggests to me that the found scene, including the people, is the subject. The couple doesn’t seem the subject, for example, against the background of the cottage. There’s a naturally holistic aspect to it as first presented. The cottage nearly filling the frame gives both a committed presence and dimension, lost when cropped. Because of this naturalism I find in the original, cropping out the centered telephone pole popping up from behind like an impetuous weed would undermine the whimsical, let-it-be attitude so often found in your work. The cropped version you offer is flatter and less direct, and provides less a strong sense of place. What may give the couple more typical “subject” orientation also renders the photo more typical, more play-by-the-rules, and less eccentric. There is a free-spiritedness evident in the couple and their home that the original photo supports and the cropped version inhibits. The clean ground and blank sky frame the bolder scene plainly and organically. There’s a charming, lifelike awkwardness to the way the house fills the frame in the original. The living charm gets reduced to mere awkwardness when the top of the house is more randomly (even if deliberately) chopped off. As to the effect of the pink, it seems very much theirs, not mine, and I feel it as such!

[Ricochetrider]

Thanks to everyone for the comments. here’s more of the back story:

So we were popping about the SW corner of England, hanging out for a couple weeks in County Cornwall with several friends. Mucking about one afternoon in this little village, walking off a mid day meal of fish & chips, we came across this super colorful house with the “convenient” bench out front.
 

I would have just shot the house/building/shop, in fact was in the process of doing just that when my friends sat down on the bench. So the photo kinda became a little bit a shot of them while still mostly being a shot of the amazing scene. It didn’t really happen on purpose but in the end I love how it turned out, with them all but blending in to the crowded setting and being more a side element with the primary focus of the overall picture being everything BUT them. 
 

I like it in its original form, telephone pole and all- I always just shoot what’s “there”; very rarely do I ever alter any scene. I don’t typically do any PP work other than auto enhancing light and sometimes levels & curves. Oh and perhaps the occasional crop. 
 

 

[Ricochetrider]

Hey here are all the photos from this segment of our Cornwall holiday if anyone wants to see them?

LINK TO CORNWALL PIX IN ZENFOLIO

 

Close the sales sidebar for best viewing. 

[samstevens]

On 2/4/2023 at 9:55 AM, samstevens said:

Which shows how important a body of work is in viewing individual photos.

 

6 hours ago, jordan2240 said:

As for Sam's comment regarding looking at a body of work in order to critique a photo, perhaps that would offer additional perspective, but I tend to see each photo individually, so unless someone wanted a series critiqued, I wouldn't find it useful to examine anything beyond the photo offered.  Of course, if the photographer explained he/she was trying for a specific look, that would certainly impact the critique.

Please note that I didn't say it was necessary to look at a body of work "in order to critique a photo." I said a body of work was important to viewing individual photos.

Consider how so many photos are discovered and seen. I go to a museum and generally see exhibits of a photographer's work. So each individual photo is seen along with other photos by the same photographer. Consciously or not, the body of work impacts how I see each photo. Same with books. I pick up a photo book of a photographer I know or one whose work I don't know, leaf through the pages, and take each photo as an individual but am also affected by the overall approach, look and feel, of the work. Or I google someone's work online. Google presents me with a sampling of that photographer's work and individuals will both stand out from the group but also create a greater whole when seen as a group.

When I want to more deeply understand a photo, I will generally look at other photos by the same photographer, which will help guide me on the path of the photographer's vision, often adding to my understanding and assessment of each individual photo.

When I critique, I tend to like to honor the photographer's vision rather than substitute my own vision for theirs. I can't do that as effectively without looking at their other work to get a sense of their style and what they may be aiming for. That allows me to respect their unique voice and likely will affect my critique. I try not to critique to my own taste but rather to give seriousness to what the photographer may be uniquely doing. And, of course, I try not to critique to some agreed-upon standard of "goodness" but rather to a more individualized sense of the photographer's expression.

Of course, to each their own.

[jordan2240]

3 hours ago, Ricochetrider said:

Hey here are all the photos from this segment of our Cornwall holiday if anyone wants to see them?

LINK TO CORNWALL PIX IN ZENFOLIO

 

Close the sales sidebar for best viewing. 

A beautiful series of shots.  You've accomplished the goals of both documenting the trip and creating photographs that are aesthetically well beyond what typical vacation snaps would be.  I'd be quite happy to accomplish the same, but you have a much better eye for framing than I do.

[jordan2240]

2 hours ago, samstevens said:

 

Please note that I didn't say it was necessary to look at a body of work "in order to critique a photo." I said a body of work was important to viewing individual photos.

Consider how so many photos are discovered and seen. I go to a museum and generally see exhibits of a photographer's work. So each individual photo is seen along with other photos by the same photographer. Consciously or not, the body of work impacts how I see each photo. Same with books. I pick up a photo book of a photographer I know or one whose work I don't know, leaf through the pages, and take each photo as an individual but am also affected by the overall approach, look and feel, of the work. Or I google someone's work online. Google presents me with a sampling of that photographer's work and individuals will both stand out from the group but also create a greater whole when seen as a group.

When I want to more deeply understand a photo, I will generally look at other photos by the same photographer, which will help guide me on the path of the photographer's vision, often adding to my understanding and assessment of each individual photo.

When I critique, I tend to like to honor the photographer's vision rather than substitute my own vision for theirs. I can't do that as effectively without looking at their other work to get a sense of their style and what they may be aiming for. That allows me to respect their unique voice and likely will affect my critique. I try not to critique to my own taste but rather to give seriousness to what the photographer may be uniquely doing. And, of course, I try not to critique to some agreed-upon standard of "goodness" but rather to a more individualized sense of the photographer's expression.

Of course, to each their own.

I have no disagreement with anything you stated.  I can understand that one might get a better idea of a photographer's style and perhaps intent by viewing a body of work.  You can apply the same philosophy to other art forms as well.  I did view "Ric's" other photos via the link above and am not convinced that having done so beforehand would have altered my original critique, but perhaps it would for some.

[William Michael]

Tom, the original conveys its purpose as an holiday memory; the 16:9 crop as an environmental portrait.

Personally I prefer the latter, for many reasons, possibly one of which is that's how I would see that opportunity - if people are in frame I tend to usually make a 'portrait picture' not a 'streetscape' or 'holiday memory',

Also the 16:9 crop is more interesting, because, it has fewer distracting features, as one example the sky - which is a non-contributing negative space.

On the second image you posted - I would argue strongly that it is not necessarily the washed out sky which enhances the image and makes the Subjects stand out; rather the low camera angle and the low horizon piques strong interest for the Viewer's Eye.

One of the early Hollywood movie producers said something along the lines of, 'horizon at the top - interesting; horizon at the bottom - interesting; horizon in the middle - boring'. I can't remember who it was.

WW     

     

[samstevens]

8 hours ago, William Michael said:

One of the early Hollywood movie producers said something along the lines of, 'horizon at the top - interesting; horizon at the bottom - interesting; horizon in the middle - boring'. I can't remember who it was.

According to the movie The Fabelmans, director John Ford said this to 15-year-old Steven Spielberg …

“When you can come to the conclusion that putting the horizon on the bottom of the frame or the top of the frame is a lot better than putting the horizon in the middle of the frame, then you may someday make a good picture-maker. Now get out of here!”

Edited February 6, 2023 by samstevens

[Ricochetrider]

Thanks very much everyone, for taking the time to comment - really appreciate it. 👍🏼

[satya_v_rao]

On 2/4/2023 at 10:27 AM, Ricochetrider said:

Please give me your opinions about this recently re-found pic. A shot of our friends, from a trip to Cornwall, England a few years ago. Nice flashback! 

Olympus OMD Em1 and the 12-40mm pro lens. 

Thanks very much.

Tom

Hi Recochetrider

Nice pic. Colourful bonanza to the eyes.!! The pic gives a quiet and lovely feel.