Visionaries

Hey Shawn, congratulations. A bit of a switch from the old junkers you post. A cute capturing of the moment. I like the faces & expressions a great deal. I would have preferred all faces in focus, but something tells me you had to shoot quickly

Fred, it was a brief glimpse of one of Andrew's folders by way of seeing what his own frame of reference was for good photography after he dismissed Shawn's Photo of the Week as a "snapshot":

I am not saying that these are not decent photos, simply that the term "snapshot" is often used pejoratively, and to dismiss any kind of street photography or PJ photography as "snapshots" is too often too cheap a way of dismissing them. Shawn's work is often certainly "documentary" in some sense, but in other ways it resembles street photography to me. If we call every candid, off-the-cuff photo a "snapshot," then I think that we have rendered the word useless.

In any case, Shawn's work has spontaneity and vitality, and one will not typically get much of those in a studio.

--Lannie

I tend to agree with what john A has to say about this photo. The girls are very cute, and I love the varied expressions, but I find the focus is soft in general, and that the elements John mentioned are a bit of a distraction. I would have liked better all around focus for each of the girls to enhance the individual expressions of each girl, which are contrasting. I feel this would have brought more to the story, or possibly a different story altogether?

Lannie, I don't think that's a reasonable description of good studio work. Often, in fact, good studio work (or setup work) is, in fact, dependent on the element of spontaneity and vitality, even within a very staged and posed look. Andrew's frame of reference may extend beyond what he, himself, produces. One can be a critic of a photograph without dabbling in the genre being critiqued. All one has to do is know how to see, which is different from knowing how to take a photograph.

And I don't think calling this a snapshot is unreasonable. There is lots of street work that does not resemble a snapshot. That one doesn't think much of this photo does not have to stem from a misunderstanding of street work or from thinking all street work is snapshot-like. One may think, as I and several others who've posted critiques here do, that this particular photo does. These are cute close-up expressions caught by a photographer, seemingly unconsciously out of focus, that likely have much more meaning for the photographer and the families of the subjects than they do for anyone else. This photo does not seem to go beyond that. That's almost the definition of a snapshot.

I understand that there is disagreement about this photo's being a snapshot and that some may like it and some may not, but it's got nothing to do with anyone thinking that all or most street work is snapshot-like and nothing to do with not being able to achieve spontaneity and vitality in a studio, which can most surely be done, even with a good still life and certainly with a good posed portrait.

Describing a purported PJ, street, or documentary shot as a snapshot is, I think, a very telling critique, if it gets someone to consider what might have taken it out of that realm. I gave a couple of suggestions of what might do it. I'm sure, if we wanted to bother and really learn, we might be able to offer other ways of going beyond a snapshot. John approached it in saying that this photo just is what it is. That suggests it lacks reach to me. Reach (or, to sound a little grander, transcendence) is often a key to a good photograph: going beyond itself.

Addition: Often, good photographs have, but are not limited to, spontaneity. I think this one is. It needs more.

Let me add to my earlier comment that I didn’t mean to use the word "snapshot" in a dismissive sense but more in a descriptive sense. The image truly looks to me like a cute snapshot. I don’t know how to give a better description of my own perception. And off course I could be wrong. That’s why we have multiple posters.

Andrew, you bring up a good point. A lot of people take the word "snapshot" to be automatically pejorative. In fact, snapshots are some of the most important photos that exist. Many "art" photographers try to capture the feel of the snapshot in their work, the snapshot aesthetic, as it were. I've been told that a few of my photos have that snapshot look and have taken that as a compliment, since that was my intention or at least something along those lines. However, on some photos, were I told it looks like a snapshot, I might be disappointed (depending on who that assessment came from). It all depends on how the analogy strikes the photographer and what the photographer thought his photo was accomplishing. A photo having a snapshot aesthetic and one that is a snapshot are different animals, of course, and that has to be taken into account as well. I think a lot of critiques are, as Andrew suggests, descriptive. I know from personal experience that when I take a description of a photo of mine to be pejorative that's when I should look more carefully at my photo to see if there is, in fact, something that I'm uncomfortable with rather than focusing on the critic. When a critique really gets to me, that's when it may be difficult but may be most worth taking notice.

I think the focus is quite problematic; it would have worked well if it had been crisply set on the girl in the middle. Her eye whites are showing and her eye would have made a better point of focus due to that. As for the third girl being possibly deliberately in sharpest focus, well, the problem is that although I can see that the focus is on her (after trying very hard, I can see that her hair is the sharpest), her face isn't quite crisp for some reason (movement?) and because her left eye isn't as openly visible as the middle girl's, I think the image loses visual impact that it might have with the focus on the middle girl's left eye. Additionally, by choosing the middle girl as point of focus, the first girl closest to the camera gets better visibility and attention from the viewer.

I also feel that the focus is problematic. No one girl is in focus. My eyes are drawn however to the sharply focused letters on the sweater.
IMHO, given that the three girls are equally important - atleast in terms of the composition, I don't see why the other two girls are only slightly out of focus. I think all three should be in focus and the background blurred.
Seems like the autfocus made the final decision...not the photographer.

I think it is great privilege if this cute capture is snapshot ( and I think it is so because it doesn't pretreated by the photographer, just like most street photos ). Philip Greenspun wrote above his great photos " Here are some snapshots from my excursions to foliage country... "
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/70-200
Anyhow, I like the spontaneity of this photo and the different reaction from the mouths.

I see it as a cute picture of a few cute little dancers. It's hard for me to be drawn into the photo because it's so tightly zoomed in and yet the focus is off. The lighting is very nice, but I feel that sharp reflections in the eyes would have increased the quality of the photo by leaps and bounds. In bringing depth and personality to a person's face in a photo, those reflections are many times, just as important as lighting the face as a whole. If the girl in the rear were in sharp focus, I think the focus issue with all three girls would be forgivable. For what it is, it isn't a bad photo. I don't see how this could be used in an artistic or professional sense so maybe I would call it a snapshop with little effect. Like it was stated before though, that doesn't mean to dismiss it's legitimacy or appeal.

I'm sorry, Andrew, but those three dots in your first post speak volumes:

As I said, "snapshot" is often (not always) used pejoratively--and it is. Your use of the pause implied by the ellipsis indicates to me a somewhat pejorative tone--but the internet is a treacherous place to try to catch intonation and intent.

As for the focus, Shawn clearly was going for the girl whose face was more expressive. The other two girls are looking, too, but the one in focus is obviously enthralled by what she is seeing. I think it works as shot, although I might prefer it with a greater DOF. Frankly, given the emphasis that it brings to the one in focus, I am inclined to think that it is better as captured than with a narrower aperture and correspondingly longer DOF. In other words, in my zeal to make it more technically correct with a longer DOF, I might have taken something away from it had I shot it and had time to reset the aperture a stop or two. In any case, there might not have been enough light to get away with stopping down very much.

--Lannie

Landrum, I do not see anything clear about your assertion , furthermore in the absence of any support or clarification from the photographer, your comment is nothing more than an assumption. I think the quote below from Phineas is just as likely to be the truth of the matter and is stated as a possibility rather than a clear conclusion.

Shawn, congrats on your photo being chosen! It's adorable!

When I photograph people at parade gatherings I almost always choose my zoom lens that maxes out at 300mm and set the aperture to f/5.6 because I like to focus on individuals that I find to be interesting. I was shooting this from about 25 feet away and I had been focusing on each of the three girls individually when they suddenly glanced upward as seen here. I quickly took the shot and it was not until later that I was kicking myself for not having a narrower aperture setting. I was aiming for the girl at the rear.

I do not consider myself to be a street photographer nor do I strive to be one. I prefer to isolate my subjects, whether they are people or otherwise, while attempting to show some uniqueness in the shots and situations. People tend to move around too much for the photography I prefer to do, but I'll keep trying at candid shots of them and hope that I occasionally get a good one.

Maybe the elves chose this photograph because of the deficiencies they and you have found with it. I don't mind being a bad example, I've often been one throughout my life.

(posted simultaneously with Shawn's own post above)

Words are indeed a very tricky thing to decipher. Here, all along, I have been assuming that folks were talking about the one in focus and primarily interesting young lady as being the one that is, IMO, the dominant subject of this shot. Primary because of the photos structure--balance and weight. Lannie's last entry now throws me off to another of these girls and I am left a bit baffled I guess--or is it just transalation?

In my way of seeing this image, with her position being weighted on (can't believe I am going to say this) the primary 3rd of the upper right quadrant, the girl in the middle is the emphasized subject here with the others providing support. Maybe her intensity is what Lannie meant by "the girl whose face was more expressive" but I somehow think he might be referring to the last girl in the line, with her broad smile as at least her ringlets actually seem to be in focus?!?

Anyway, if this photo had any chance of doing more than being about 3 cute little girls, it would have been to somehow exploit that intensity of the middle girl, to put some substance into the shot by adding some tension or intrigue to it.

Like I said the problem with words is that they are sometimes hard to decipher and can have many meanings and connotations and each, I suppose, has to ferret that out for themselves. When talking about photos, words like "snapshot", "cute" or certainly "interesting" can all straddle that fence that seems to be in question here!

Shawn,  thanks for weighing in with the facts.  To me it did look as if you were trying for the girl in back and  either they moved or you moved a  fraction of a second before the shutter opened.


In the spirit of being a bad example,  I will break with management preferred POW protocol and  wholeheartedly congratulate you on the attention I hopes this ( honour? ) bestowed on your portfolio, as it is a truly inspired portfolio both diverse and of high technical caliber. Your work has often been a source of inspiration for me.  I also always enjoy our spirited and often funny  exchanges here at PN.


  As you may have guessed this is not one of my favorites of your images. I am about as fond of cute as I am of the dentists chair, and the focus issue is hard for me to get around.   That being said, I love the folder from which this image comes.  I am no expert on street shooting but I will say that for my tastes I like the fact that you get in close and use a narrow dof to isolate your subjects. I would not want to see this photo shot wider for more context.  I  like that it is up close and personal.

I think it's a great photo--not a perfect one--but an excellent shot. You caught the subject of the photo at an optimal point. Surely that's worth a lot. I think the question of which girl is in focus should be considered a matter of taste. The photo would tell a slightly different story if the middle girl were in focus as opposed to the farthest girl. And a bit of softness is not necessarily a problem with a photo of a group of girls' faces, as long as something else isn't in sharp focus, like the badge on the farthest girl's shirt--I'd blur that a bit with Photoshop.

I would touch the photo up a little bit in other respects: Get rid of the earring on the girl farthest from us. It looks like it's proceeding from the second girl's mouth. There's also a piece of hair coming from behind the farthest girl that could be done away with, as well as getting rid of the stringy sort of reflection in the farthest girl's mouth. The comment that the bright spots in the hair of the closest girl are distracting is valid.

But, overall, great shot!

Forgot to say, the tone seems a litte bit on the blue side to me and might be warmed up a little.

"I prefer to isolate my subjects, whether they are people or otherwise, while attempting to show some uniqueness in the shots and situations." --Shawn

Shawn, I appreciate your confidence and candor in saying this. I certainly think there is a lot to be gained from close-ups. Because of the way you talked about this photo in your opening statement, relating it both to the parade itself, which you named, and to the other photos you took that day, I did think you had some documentary (if even in a very loose sense) aspects in mind. However, I accept that that's not what you're after and not the way you shoot. Still, you've shown them in context of the other shots and bothered to mention the parade and talk about it, so I will stick to my point that this photo would have more impact on me if at least some of the ones from this parade showed me the context you have talked about in your opening statement.

The reason I quoted you is to get a feel for what you mean when you say that you prefer to isolate your subjects (and you've mentioned the f-stop you tend to use which would narrow the depth of field and tend to lessen the impact of any background) yet showing some uniqueness in the "situations." How do you feel you show situational factors while minimizing the background to the extent you do? This is not a trick question. I have a feeling you'll have an interesting answer. It may be my own imagination that's lacking here. I see most close-up shots as zeroing in on expression, individuality, etc. but not on situation.

I can't possibly disagree with Ben's suggestions to delete an ear ring, hair, and a reflection from the furthest girl. That's part of their costume and it really would be utterly destructive to remove the ear ring. That reflection in the mouth adds to the vitality of the girl AND adds life to her expression. And the hair? COME ON!!! She's got curly Irish hair!!! Why would anyone shop it out? It's a street shot, not a Vogue editorial advertising fashion. For all intensive purposes, it's a street shot and I get the feeling you might even cringe at the thought of editing out parts. May as well add a random red vase with blue roses and some butterflies.

I feel that the girl in focus tries to predict evolution of something she observes. The two others out of focus enjoy what comes. In my granfdfather opinion a man with Leica was not serious compared to one who had 30kg equipement. Capa certainly was not serious but his photo of death is the greatest taken so far. He isolated the death by coming very close to it. He found at last the bullet for him trying to isolate something. I found this photo very good.

Shawn, for me looking at it for the first time the focus was on the girl in the middle, while the other two are "framing" her, a bit out of focus. I like the different expression on their faces, it looks that each of them was experiencing differently what they were facing. Looking at the series and your explanation ,the photo has a context (without it, it was a nice photo of 3 girls looking at something). I like the narrow DOF that concentrate the sight on their expression and also their placement on the frame. Taking into account that it is a street/parade shot, a fact that every fraction of a second counts, I think that you have been ready. Snapshots can be very nice and aesthetic . Imo this one qualifies for discussion. I think that in order to understand the artist it is important to look at his entire work , which many of them I like. My best wishes, Shawn .

Sometimes, I think we do sort of ignore the obvious in some of our images. Here, we want to focus on the little girls' faces. Shawn suggests the one furthest in while I feel that structurally and spiritually, based on the composition, it is the middle girl that takes center stage. But regardless, it is in the details where an image can spark to life.

I don't do it often and generally someone doesn't like the change or the work done or whatever, but I am going to attach an image, a bit of burning and dodging, I did to this image. My reason is just for the basic observations I gave in my first post here. For me, the girl furthest back starts to blend too much with the light upper left corner and overall, the image just feels a bit loose--other than because of focus.

My rendition here does put a little more emphasis on the middle girl, but I hope my point that just working an image a bit can change it and maybe make it a bit more focused and appealing--or not... (it is a bit depressed on the back girl's face, but this is about the idea, not my skills working on an image in a minute!)

I think there are two ways the word "focus" is being used here. The first as the "focal point" or "primary target." The second meaning sharpness.