Old Photo, Please Critique

[Ricochetrider]

This photo, shot on Kodak Tri-X 400 with my Hasselblad 500cm & the 80mm Planar lens, is among the dozen or so I had prints made of last year. The full set was kind of “on tour” in 2023, being exhibited around the South Central PA area.  This particular photo has now been accepted as part of a presentation of artworks entitled “Figuratively Speaking”, on exhibit at the Art Association of Harrisburg (Pennsylvania), Jan 12 thru Feb 15. 
 

It’s one of my favorite shots from The Race Of Gentlemen, a vintage beach drag racing event for pre WWII cars and motorcycles. 
 

Please give me your opinions on this photo. 

Thanks very much. 
 

PS: I’m not 100% certain I’ve not posted this shot here before;  I hope not but in case of redundancy, please forgive me! 
 

Thanks and Happy New Year to everyone. 
 

[AlanKlein]

It's an interesting shot.  I think you could have pulled back further. Too many things are cut off and the subjects are squeezed. Why is the background whited out? Would leaving it in better tell a story? 

[dcstep]

1 hour ago, AlanKlein said:

It's an interesting shot.  I think you could have pulled back further. Too many things are cut off and the subjects are squeezed. Why is the background whited out? Would leaving it in better tell a story? 

LOL, it's so funny that I, a fellow photographer, totally agree with Alan, BUT it's no bother at all to the judges that selected it for exhibition! (Congrats, BTW).

So, for me, it opens a potential discussion of photography "rules." Ricochetrider were you "breaking the rules" on purpose? Others, does this tell us that breaking the rules makes our images more powerful, or is it just that some rules just don't matter.? Would the committee have selected this image if bits hadn't been cut off?

I love the image.

[samstevens]

Is it a rule not to cut things off? Has anyone that mattered ever followed that rule? I ask because I've been looking at photos most of my life and have seen plenty of photos sitting in museums with feet cut off, buildings cut off abruptly, cars and dogs cut off, etc. It's often a sign of spontaneity and a result of being in the moment.

What struck me here was the starkness and the scale and proportionality of the visual/narrative. 

I like the dialogue set up between being confronted with the back of the guy in the foreground and the profile of the guy in the background. It leads my imagination out of the frame while locating me well within it.

It would be bolstered as part of a series, and not necessarily of other biker pics. It stands well next to some of your small town buildings and other stuff, many of which have the same mood and overall feel. I think being able to capture and create similar moods with different kinds of subjects is an accomplishment. It's done, often, by abstraction ... paying attention to qualities and elements that instill these feelings in a viewer on a less conscious level.

[conrad_hoffman]

Sometimes you can cut things off with no problem. As an example, your brain knows the shape of the helmet above and completes the curve. This is used often with bodies of water and other things. The boots bother me a bit, but not a lot.

[Ricochetrider]

To address some of these things… the sky was bright but overcast this day. Can’t recall if I’d metered this- but probably not. Either way, I like the way the whited out sky enhances the subjects without distraction.

 

As to the “cut off” bits… I honestly don’t shoot with “rules” in mind. I also rarely take much time to set up a shot. By the time my camera is aimed, I’ve had the shot framed in my head. This guy with his back to us was saddling up so there wasn’t a lot of time for me in this. All my film photos are shot using prime lenses. I generally choose each shot based on which lens is on whatever camera. I prefer to capture whatever details, generally at or near the center of attention (but not necessarily at the center of the photo).
 

I basically shoot whatever I want however I want- without a lot of thought. It’s kind of automatic in me…. for better or worse, lol. Digital cameras give one lots more options, you can shoot a lot of stuff in a very short time. Not so with film. I was lucky to get this photo before the guy got on the bike and rode off. 

EDIT: this setting is always very busy. you can see part of another bike’s front tire in the lower left corner. I suppose that’s one reason I got in this close. Didn’t want a bunch of other stuff in the shot. It’s about the bike and the guy saddling up; the other dude in there IMO is icing on the proverbial cake. 
 

OH and BTW this exhibit and the Association are pretty down tempo. Not like I had to submit to a panel of judges, I showed the shot to the Art Associstion president asking if it’d be appropriate- and she said “yes please bring it over”

Edited January 8 by Ricochetrider

[samstevens]

15 minutes ago, Ricochetrider said:

I honestly don’t shoot with “rules” in mind.

I’m less likely to shoot with rules in mind than with having built up certain patterns, which we probably all do to some extent. Noticing the patterns and utilizing them to create a personal voice is challenging and rewarding. Breaking the patterns can be difficult but rewarding as well. Once seasoned, allowing instinct a key role can result in something personal and authentic.

Viewing photos can also be guided by rules, often worthless, patterns (worth working with and breaking at times), and instinct, too often missing. Something I’ve tried to hone over the years is empathetic viewing, seeing what the photographer is showing, their vision, rather than looking for what I want to see or would have seen. That’s not always easy, especially in a critique. But I find it not only liberating, I also think it’s improved my photography to embrace a bunch of different ways to see, even some I may not necessarily “like”. 

[dcstep]

I've been relatively "serious" about photography, off and on, for around 65-years. Just like playing trumpet, which started a year or two earlier, I learned by studying and practicing "rules." The photography rules included things like, get the horizon level, don't randomly cut off parts of peoples heads and feet. Look out for the background, and don't let a telephone pole look like it's growing out of the subject's head. Don't let the horizon cut the image in half, unless there's a balancing reflection. Don't blow out the highlights or lose the shadow details, etc., etc., etc.

The rules, for many of us, allow us to start getting pleasing results quickly. Those without a rules-based start might have a hard time at first, finding a pleasing result. I compare it to a classically trained musician to a trumpeter that was handed a trumpet with no guidance, other than his father's jazz record collection. The budding trumpeter, I'm thinking of Roy Hargrove, tried to sound like the records. The only "rules" were like "A" is first and second valve and Bb is first valve, but he might not have even known the name of the note, just the sound. Roy went to the same high school as my oldest, so I know that he was in junior high before he really started to read music, after he could already play many of Miles Davis' most iconic solos. In his early professional career he had to work hard to catch up with some "chops" based things, like fast tonging, which we classically, rules-based learners are taught in a "normal progression." (Miles wasn't known for any fast playing, so Roy kind of blew by that).

Me, OTOH, started playing jazz in my 40s. Unlike my wife and one of my daughters, I'd never learned to play "by ear", so my jazz training started with "these notes fit over these chords." It was pathetic and still is, although, after decades of practice, I can take a decent solo that won't make you wretch, but you won't pay for more.

Many photographers "play by ear", just like some or many musicians. Us rules-based photographers either work hard to break away from the rules, or find mediums that are well suited to "rules", like wildlife photography. I DO try to tell a story, but I often resort to "get a positive head angle", "get a light in the eye", "watch out for the rump of another animal in the background", "use a lens with a pleasing bokeh". I go for "pleasing reality" in my scenic photography, going for nice balance, nice colors, etc. It NEVER crosses my mind to shoot a wall with a old brick, new brick, clock, conduit and door. If I see and interesting pattern in nature, I might go for it, but not a wall.

Anyway, some of us use rules and some of us don't. Both are valid, I think.

Does breaking rules infringe on art, or does following rules infringe on art? I think, I depends...
 

[samstevens]

@dcstep I think as you observe and articulated well, it depends. I've always seen rules as guidelines, and I have read about and utilized the guidelines and, with more and more experience, learned when they're helpful and when they're not. The guidelines certainly work well for certain genres and situations. Context is important. The type of photo we're critiquing here helps suggest whether it's worth seeing within guidelines that might apply to other genres or particular photos, which I sense you understand.

And, knowing the rules or guidelines can actually be a key in flouting them expressively and even satirizing them with some photos. So, people like Erwitt and others were able to turn some of the guidelines on their head, because they knew them, knew their limits, and recognized the potential of seeing around them. 

https://i0.wp.com/fraenkelgallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/LF-30-22-1.jpg?fit=675%2C448&quality=90&strip=all&ssl=1

https://img.artlogic.net/w_1010,h_580,c_limit/exhibit-e/556d89b2cfaf3421548b4568/30c153b77be04fe5f4c4b2ac465eadb8.jpeg

[dcstep]

8 minutes ago, samstevens said:

@dcstep I think as you observe and articulated well, it depends. I've always seen rules as guidelines, and I have read about and utilized the guidelines and, with more and more experience, learned when they're helpful and when they're not. The guidelines certainly work well for certain genres and situations. Context is important. The type of photo we're critiquing here helps suggest whether it's worth seeing within guidelines that might apply to other genres or particular photos, which I sense you understand.

And, knowing the rules or guidelines can actually be a key in flouting them expressively and even satirizing them with some photos. So, people like Erwitt and others were able to turn some of the guidelines on their head, because they knew them, knew their limits, and recognized the potential of seeing around them. 

https://i0.wp.com/fraenkelgallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/LF-30-22-1.jpg?fit=675%2C448&quality=90&strip=all&ssl=1

https://img.artlogic.net/w_1010,h_580,c_limit/exhibit-e/556d89b2cfaf3421548b4568/30c153b77be04fe5f4c4b2ac465eadb8.jpeg

LOL, Sam. Great examples The parody reminds me of SNL "news" or the "public radio ladies", that come to mind every time I hear a particular local female announcer on my "classical radio" station.

[inoneeye]

👍. Hi Tom I have come across this photo before. It felt then and now like a Hasselblad tri-x image. I appreciate your liking the tone of the sky setting off the subject. I have seen similar in some of your other photos. Metered or not the subject in leathers is well exposed. So the clear daylight sky would most likely be bright white.
For me the merging of sky to the beach is distracting. Although there is very little beach present, when I checked it there is a delineation there. When processed with that in mind I find my own photos have less of a graphic sensibility. And enhancing the beach adds to it. Bringing the beach location into focus with tone and horizon is a strong element here that would not distract from your subject. 

Edited January 8 by inoneeye

[Ricochetrider]

Hi guys, and thanks for the thoughts. Dave, I paprticularly like your comparison to musicianship. I love jazz, so that really resonated with me. Josh, speaking to your point about the beach (aka background?), maybe this is where a different aperture would play better- something that would give me a deeper DOF, F8 or whatever. Looking closer at this background, there are definitely elements or goings-on that would bring a stronger sense of context to the shot. DOF and apeture settings is another thing I want to work on improving.  

I do (by now) have a reasonable understanding of the rules... so I'm conscious of things like getting the horizon level, metering for exposure, and telphone poles! I still tend to focus so much on my subject tho, that I often forget to see what else is happening in frame. This I've gotten much better at, especially if I'm not being pressed by any sort of time constraint.  Some times, I'll even look over the camera because I so often don't pay close enough attention- someone will walk into the shot as I'm pressing the shutter button, for example. I feel like I need to be seeing all things, as much to help frame a shot- but so I dont end up with some errant human in my photo, too!  With the Hasselblad, I most often shoot with a tripod and cable release. This comes from havng blown a shot or two by jiggling the camera around- hate to admit it but it's happened enough that I rarely hand-hold this camera. But the technique is helpful because I can frame a shot, stand up and keep an eye on everything, then pull the trigger when the coast is clear, knowing I've got it all framed up. 

[AlanKlein]

2 hours ago, dcstep said:

I've been relatively "serious" about photography, off and on, for around 65-years. Just like playing trumpet, which started a year or two earlier, I learned by studying and practicing "rules." The photography rules included things like, get the horizon level, don't randomly cut off parts of peoples heads and feet. Look out for the background, and don't let a telephone pole look like it's growing out of the subject's head. Don't let the horizon cut the image in half, unless there's a balancing reflection. Don't blow out the highlights or lose the shadow details, etc., etc., etc.

The rules, for many of us, allow us to start getting pleasing results quickly. Those without a rules-based start might have a hard time at first, finding a pleasing result. I compare it to a classically trained musician to a trumpeter that was handed a trumpet with no guidance, other than his father's jazz record collection. The budding trumpeter, I'm thinking of Roy Hargrove, tried to sound like the records. The only "rules" were like "A" is first and second valve and Bb is first valve, but he might not have even known the name of the note, just the sound. Roy went to the same high school as my oldest, so I know that he was in junior high before he really started to read music, after he could already play many of Miles Davis' most iconic solos. In his early professional career he had to work hard to catch up with some "chops" based things, like fast tonging, which we classically, rules-based learners are taught in a "normal progression." (Miles wasn't known for any fast playing, so Roy kind of blew by that).

Me, OTOH, started playing jazz in my 40s. Unlike my wife and one of my daughters, I'd never learned to play "by ear", so my jazz training started with "these notes fit over these chords." It was pathetic and still is, although, after decades of practice, I can take a decent solo that won't make you wretch, but you won't pay for more.

Many photographers "play by ear", just like some or many musicians. Us rules-based photographers either work hard to break away from the rules, or find mediums that are well suited to "rules", like wildlife photography. I DO try to tell a story, but I often resort to "get a positive head angle", "get a light in the eye", "watch out for the rump of another animal in the background", "use a lens with a pleasing bokeh". I go for "pleasing reality" in my scenic photography, going for nice balance, nice colors, etc. It NEVER crosses my mind to shoot a wall with a old brick, new brick, clock, conduit and door. If I see and interesting pattern in nature, I might go for it, but not a wall.

Anyway, some of us use rules and some of us don't. Both are valid, I think.

Does breaking rules infringe on art, or does following rules infringe on art? I think, I depends...
 

Many of my photos are boring because they tend to follow rules.  Not because I tick them off.  I just tend to shoot that way.  My mind is very organized and balanced so I tend to shoot pictures the same way, less exciting.  To know what I mean, imagine a travel magazine or travel postcards.  

[dave_thomas8]

I like it, it's a very strong and uncluttered image. It's neat the way the gent in back is framed by the elbow, jacket, and fender in the foreground.

In my lurid past I would have probably backed up to "get the whole thing in," but now older (and wiser? 🙃) I have found sometimes zeroing in on a smaller element of a scene floats my boat. I have a shot of a steel railroad trestle that is/was 200+ feet high and 800 feet long that shows about two feet of a vertical section of one trusswork leg of a supporting tower with a cast(?) date plate on it. It got an award in a local show and a talented painter I know looked at and said some nice things, adding that he and many others would probably have walked right past it without even noticing.

In historic structures there's often a fancy brass doorknob or wrought iron metalwork in a window that provides a different take.

 

Keep at it!

Edited January 9 by dave_thomas8

[Ricochetrider]

15 hours ago, AlanKlein said:

Many of my photos are boring because they tend to follow rules.  Not because I tick them off.  I just tend to shoot that way.  My mind is very organized and balanced so I tend to shoot pictures the same way, less exciting.  To know what I mean, imagine a travel magazine or travel postcards.  

Hi Alan

IMO there's no wrong way, I believe we all seek our own level of comfort with our gear and find the technique that works best for us. It's really great that you are comfortable shooting "your way" to get the shots as you want them to look. 👍

[Ricochetrider]

Hi @dave_thomas8

Nice! And yep, I get it.

 I so often shoot old cars and bikes... we all pretty much know what these things look like- and as often as not, lots of folks are also shooting the same things so right out of the gate I wanted to get "something different" than everyone else. Kinda like vacation shots where there's millions of the exact same photo of whatever iconic structure... the whole world knows what a model A Ford  (or whatever) looks like. But historically, there's been a lot of artful design in the automitve and mechanized/motorized world - same as with architecture too, something else that's near and dear to my heart.

I brought my vision in to capture details or snippets. Eventually, I figured out I wanted to shoot these sort of shots with my biggest lenses, so I began using my 250mm Sonnar for "close ups". Not sure how I got onto that but I really like the lens and the shots I get with it. It's a bit odd, going the other way, on the 500cm that 250mm doesn't really give you all that much reach. But for close ups it's great.... Maybe shooting deatils with a telphoto lens is a by-product of my ignorance of the craft... ? But my "long distance close ups" have become one of my signature "looks".  

Edited January 9 by Ricochetrider

[samstevens]

2 hours ago, Ricochetrider said:

long distance close up

Ricochetrider, the oxymoron flâneur.

Edited January 9 by samstevens

[hjoseph7]

It's sort of a High-key shot which adds mystery/aura to the photo, but like others said, a wider crop would have made it more impactful.. 

Edited January 11 by hjoseph7

[JDMvW]

flâneur

It's always fun to see old words used again

[Ricochetrider]

On 1/11/2024 at 11:03 AM, JDMvW said:

flâneur

It's always fun to see old words used again

I ❤️ words.

I admit to having to look up “flaneur” tho, a new one on me!