Boys in Blue/Yellow

First of all, guys, we owe it to ourselves to realize that Charo is not a guy-see her photo if in doubt.

Second, I can only agree in part with Kohda on whether to post only one's best work on PN--a good strategy and a good discipline, but surely sometimes there is something interesting and problematic in an otherwise flawed image, and one might be looking for feedback. Even so, the exception makes the rule, and the rule is a good one. (Mine are so flawed, however, that I would never get anything posted if I followed your advice, Kohda.)

This week's photo is the exception to the rule, in my opinion. Charo knew that it was flawed, but she could not perfect it--going back to Cape Verde was not an option, and she had neither the PS experience nor the inclination to manipulate it to such an extent that it would meet professional standards. Even so, she knew that it had something worth sharing--the colors and the shadow, most notably, but the overall composition as well (at least without the feet problem).

To Douglas Vincent: There is more than an ethic of veracity at stake with regard to cloning, etc., as you know. There is an entire philosophy of photography at stake, I think--a personal code, but not an ethical quandary that involves absolute right and wrong, if such absolutes exist.

To Charo: thanks for the lovely image. If you had failed to post this because you didn't get anything below the feet, we would be the poorer for it.

To put the "missing feet" issue in perspective, please look at Emil Schildt's photoid=909841.

Emil Schildt cropped off Sara's feet, in this image... Yes. Is this a flaw in Emil's picture ? Imo, no. Is it a flaw in the present POW ? In my opinion, yes. So, the question is why. And how do we differenciate a flawed crop from an ok crop ?

1) Charo's boys are walking. As such, their feet are the support of this movement, and as such they'd rather be within the frame. That's not the case for Emil's picture: Sara is lying down.

2) In Charo's picture, I would say that if you would now crop off some of this wall at the top - which I don't really advise -, the "missing feet will be less and less of a problem - though they will still be a problem to some extent. Why would a crop at the top minimize the negarive impression we get from these missing feet ? Because the missing feet have introduced a disproportion in the image. There is now too much wall at the top and it wasn't absolutely needed, so we don't understand why the feet are left out of the frame, and the image looks heavy at the bottom, and it seems to be a mistake... The less wall you'd have at the top, the less disproportion and imbalance you will have. You can verify that in Emi'l picture where we do not feel any imbalance.

3) In Charo's picture the film plane and the subject plane were (roughly) parallel. In Emil's picture, that's not the case at all. What difference does it make ? Well, imagine Emil's picture WITH the feet included... Due to the perspective, the feet would probably be bigger than the head, and therefore too prominent imo.

4) Charo's picture is a life documentary, Emil's picture is a fine art studio work. What difference does it make ? Poetic licence is more likely to be accepted in studio work, especially for works that are dark and technically more "artsy" overall.

That's probably why in Emil's picture, the crop looks ok to me, whereas it's not so ok in Charo's picture, imo.

Side note: this - hopefully, if it convinces you - goes a long way to show how complex composition matters are in photography. Regards.

If I'm not mistaken Charo is a diminutive for Rosario, that would make Charo Díaz a she, then, most probably, it would have been her husband, a he, wearing the red Ascot's hat. That would surly have altered altogether the image. Two laughing boys in the boundary of two colors.

¡What a very nice surprise to see yout picture as POW! The very first thing I see when I connect to the Internet for the very first time after my car accident is you POW! Hearstest congratulations Charo!

Uh, if you took the slide out of the mount, maybe the missing feet are in there?

 

Not that it matters. Great shot!

Charo,

 

Considering the comments and reviews relating to your photo that was chosen for the Photograph of the week on Photo.Net, I'm not one looking to attempt at correcting perfection but would like to offer a humble suggestion.

 

What do you think of adding an additional colour overlay to the right side of the "Blue & Yellow" photo to make it "Blue & Yellow & Blue" as it were? Do you think that by duplicating the cyan tone on the right side of the frame it helps to balance the composition?

 

It it just a suggestion and not to be taken as a negative criticism.

 

Regards, G.

To Marc: You're absolutely right about the crop, Marc. I just love Emil's photo--actually, darned near all of them. Cropping issues abound, of course, and have dominated this PoW discussion. With Emil's photo, there are admittedly more interesting things to talk about. . . .

To Marc again: Emil's picture raises not only cropping issues (as does Charo's), but raises an intersting compositional issue: the primal triangle seems to be pointing downward, as if to say, "Enter here," or at least, "Look here, stupid." In addition, the dark triangle, combined with the lines representing the intersection of legs and abdomen, literally draws one into the "image." Ah, God, the master composer. . . .

 

The present photo is interesting, too, but primarily in terms of colors, I think, as well as that wonderful shadow on the wall.

Hi everyone,

This morning, after Kodha´s comment about something with the viewfinder, I thought that the feet could be inside the framed slide. So when I got home, I unframed it, and scanned again, et voila! The feet were there beneath the frame.

 

I´m very sorry that my unexperience at scanning has caused you all this trouble, but I´m very happy to find his feet, and this is something I won´t forget: always look beneath the frame of the slides!

The difference between photographs with key elements of the

main subject/s slightly cut or almost cut (like Charo's) and

photographs with key elements of the main subject/s really cut

(like Emil's) is that in the first one the viewer gets the sensation

that the slight crop was not intentional -- maybe it was more from

carelessness -- not even accidental; while in the second case,

the viewer gets the sensation that the photographer intentionally

crop-out the element (in Emil's case, the two feet).

 

Lesson learned: when you crop, either crop really obvious or do

not crop at all. In art as well as in photography, what you take out

is as much as important as what you put in (even if it is not in the

frame).

One possible problem for this is that the viewfinder of your Nikon FM10 has a frame coverage of only 92%, So it is very possible that you saw those missing feet in your viewfinder, but were never recorded on the film.

I'm afraid this is wrong. A viewfinder with 92% coverage would only show you what's going to cover 92% of the frame. In fact, there would actually be more on the frame than what Charo saw...as proved by his discovery when he removed the mount.

92% frame coverage means that what will be recorded on the

film is only 92% of what you see on the viewfinder. 100% frame

coverage (like the one on the Nikon F5) means WYSWYG. Charo

did get those feet recorded on film because she actually saw a

lot more that what she posted here. 92% means 92%.

92% frame coverage means that what will be recorded on the

film is only 92% of what you see on the viewfinder. 100% frame

coverage (like the one on the Nikon F5) means WYSWYG. Charo

did get those feet recorded on film because she actually saw a

lot more that what she posted here. 92% means 92%.

That's a great shot. The feet don't bug me at all but I tend to like things that are slightly croped. They feel less synthetic to me. I know I'm alone there so no need to kill me on these boards.

 

 

In regards to the 100% vs 92% chat: I bought a Canon 1V over a EOS 3 in part because I wanted the 100% view. While I am extremely happy with the 1V and would not chose to exchange it, the 100% view is a tiny problematic. I should almost entirely slides and almost always mounted. The mounted slides are not 100% after the mounting. They are close but not exact. When I shot with an FM2 (92%?) I did not have the problem of accidently cropping off important edge elements because the slide always had more than what I saw in the viewfinder.

 

In any event Charo, congrats on a well deserved photo of the Week.

Kohda, I am certainly no expert on this matter, but everything that I have read about frame coverage suggests that you have it backward: you actually have more on film than what you see. Something analogous can also occur with some digital cameras. My Olympus E-20 shows most of what is being recorded, but the image that is recorded is actually larger than the image that is seen when taking the picture.

 

Of course, I could be wrong about all this about other cameras, but I am sure about my own.

I too, am no technical expert, so I did some research on the subject of "frame coverage" and after more than an hour of searching on the web, I was directed from Ask Jeeves back to photo.net. Anyway, here's a quote from one poster:

"If you put slides in slide mounts which show the entire 24mm x 36mm frame, such as some of the Wess mounts, a 100% viewfinder is essential. A second benefit of a 100% viewfinder is that a viewfinder of less than 100% not only crops the image, it may be off-center in relation to the center of the slide. Thus for slides I prefer my EOS-1n to my EOS."

-- S Lissner , March 13, 2000; 06:33 P.M. Eastern

The link to the page is... http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000oMk

The second scan is indeed more balanced. The feet help. It's probably because of what Marc already said, there is a plenty of wall above the heads and boys are in motion.

 

To Kohda: you got it the other way around - 92% viewfinder coverage really means that you only see 92% of the film frame surface. I have a camera with 92% coverage, and I keep getting unexpected things at the edges of frame that I did not see through the viewfinder when taking the shot.

I get a 'not found' message when I true to view your new scan. Could

you upload a slightly smaller scan so the image can be viewed

directly? Thanks. .

you are definetely wrong about the viewfinder.

I can't get the image to come up, either. I get the same error message.

 

To Kohda: Is it possible that we are talking about different things?

92% viewfinder coverage Leon Mlakar ,

 

92% frame coverage Kohda Kahn ,

 

Leon tells us that Kohda is wrong about frame coverage by giving us a definition of viewfinder coverage.

 

Me, like the others, I'm nothing close to an expert (both in English and photography).

 

But, is it not a semantics problem what is keeping the argument alive? See if I can explain it and someone corroborate it or deny it.

 

92% viewfinder coverage: would mean that only 92% of what gets recorded we can see thru the viewfinder.

92% frame coverage: would mean that only 92% of what we see thru the viewfinder is actually recorded in film.

 

Frame coverage and viewfinder coverage are two different things?

Can they possibly happen in a camera? (not the same one :-) )

 

If both answers are affirmative Kohda wouldn't be wrong, would he?

 

By the way we dropped the shadow discussion without a solution.

I didn't want to beat a dead horse, and no one else seemed interested in it, so I let it go. Somebody did mention that it could ave been diffused by a branch, but I don't know.

That sounds right to me, Christian, and I had an inkling of such when I asked Kohda if we were talking about the same thing.

 

The reference to "slides" sent the red flag up for me.

 

Thanks for what I believe to a clarification of this matter, but someone truly authoritative on cameras might want to step forward on this one.

If a viewfinder has 92% coverage, it means that the viewer is only seeing 92% of what is getting recorded on the film.

So called frame coverage has nothing to do with it...I've never heard this term. If you have anything less than a 100% finder, there will be more recorded on the film than what you saw in the viewfinder. For Nikon, I believe only the F5, F4 and the F3 have 100% viewfinders.