Boys in Blue/Yellow

I went back and read the discussion on "frame coverage" again

(http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000o

Mk) and I am now even more confused. Anyway, the point is to

know the capabilities/limitations of your equpment and

compensate accordingly. As I said, I am no techie, so if I am

wrong then, Charo, acepta por favor mi apología. I also

apologize for my English, it is not my first language. Neither is

Spanish. :-)

Interesting discussion on the perils of in-camera cropping with a sideline in whether you should trust your viewfinder's coverage.

There's nothing worse than that sinking feeling you get when you realise an otherwise useful pic has a fatal flaw. Sometimes it's so minor that many will let you get away with it (e.g. a beautiful group shot with one person in a distracting state of mid-blink). When I once had some cash in my pocket (in younger and happier days) I toyed with the idea of buying my very own HCB original, a copy of Sunday On The Banks Of The Marne, that was for sale in a Sydney gallery. But when I looked up close at it (the print was about 10x15 inches) I noticed that zut alors! the main guy's eyes were closed. Worse than closed, they were in the dreaded mid-blink position. Everything else was perfect (the picture is regarded as one of HCB's classics), but the blink ruined it for me. So I left the gallery sans my HCB original and never regretted it. And I still had the dollars in my pocket as a consolation prize.

All those years of admiring the picture and the old man had been foisting a fraud on me! Formidable!

In a small scale reproduction (i.e. as most books show it) the picture is about as good as decisive moment photography gets. In enlargement, it fails my own personal final test. Many would say the flaw doesn't matter to them; some would say that it does matter but is balanced by the excellent remainder of the picture; some would say I'm a picky old bastard... but to me that blink was a killer. I still refer to the picture for inspiration regarding the photographing of an arrangement of a group of people, but ultimately I don't see it as a "keeper", at least at all scales of enlargement. In my mind it has been relegated from the highest echelons of the photographic art, to the less exalted state of "high academic interest". Mind you, I don't expect my puny opinion to change anyone else's mind on the picture.

Now to those feet.

One thing they have done is to engender a lively discussion on The Fatal Flaw. Implicit in any such discussion is the "other" discussion: "How high does a photograph need to jump to be regarded as a classic?". In the case of the HCB shot, not much further, because at a smaller enlargement you don't see the eyes. In Charo's picture (the subject of this discussion) the "flaw" is noticeable at any resolution or enlargement. We can sit back and enjoy the bright colors, the shadows of the trees and the boys (not immediately apparent from a casual glance, they give the shot a pleasant après-goût), the complex shapes of the boys' limbs... lots of good stuff here!

But the "flaw" of the slightly high framing remains. It is not the type of flaw that can really be glossed over, in my view, with platitudes like, "good effort anyway", or "nice try", or (the worst thing that any critic could say), "Well, I couldn't have done any better myself".

This isn't an attack on the picture or its photographer. It's a really good picture in so many ways, very informative of skill and photographic vision. And don't forget, the photographer had no or little say in which picture was chosen, so we can't "blame" Charo. But to say that it totally succeeds (as some have said, and others have implied) is wrong-headed, I think.

Perfection cannot ever be attained, for there is always a frame of reference in which "perfection" decays into "pretty good" (even in the case of HCB). You just have to look close enough, and have high enough standards and you can find that flaw, that mistake. In HCB's case above, the blink was an act of God, a piece of bad luck that (for one viewer) ruined the shot. In Charo's case, the camera should have been tilted down a little, or a step taken backwards to widen the aspect. Who knows what the conditions were at the time of opening the shutter?

Just how closely should we look for flaws in a picture? Where is the boundary between close review and downright orneryness? Well, that's for each of us to decide for ourselves. For me, personally, the bar is pretty high, for a perfect or near-perfect composition and subject matter in a photograph gives me something to aim for in my own endeavours. For others, in awe of even getting exposure right (much less achieving a grand composition and beautiful color rendition) "near enough is good enough". Perhaps both "perfection" and "imperfection" are useful in different ways: the former giving us something to aim for, the latter to let us know that even the best are not gods, and that for mere mortals, there is always room for improvement. Making the decision to improve any activity you (or others you admire) engage in is difficult, but the rewards are great.

I think the elf who wrote the POW spiel did well to present that challenge to us directly.

Gee, Tony: I always saw those eyes as caught in the "red wine concentration(on not missing the glass)" pose, rather than "mid -blink".

Since Charo claims that the missing feet were hidden by the slide mount, I guess we have the perfect photo here.

But I agree with Tony. The technical part of me keeps me from fully enjoying the photo, even though I think it says the same thing with or without the feet.

It's like when I was a kid sitting in school and the teacher would erase the chalkboard but leave one tiny line of chalk up in a corner. I wanted so badly to run up there and erase it completely.

You too, Jim? The bit about the chalk, I mean. So it wasn't just me...that takes a load right off my mind.

 

How do you handle single leaves that fall on a path you've just swept? Grouting imperfections when you're tiling a new bathroom?

 

I want to tell you everything, Jim.

When you look REAL close, it's a blink. I wanted it to be "closed eyes, savouring the fragrance"... but good old-fashioned, red-blooded, happy-snapper, amateur-hour, turkey-with-a-camera, Kodak-Box-Brownie "blink" it was.

To see those missing feet, go to

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/big-image?bboard_upload_id=118

59484

"I think the elf who wrote the POW spiel did well to present that

challenge to us directly."

 

Tony, seems to me, the elf said just the opposite, that we should

overlook the obvious flaw. I think many of us thought it DID detract

from it's excellence.

 

This viewfinder thing isn't complicated. All cameras except the F3,

F4, and F5 capture more than you see, so you will get distracting

elements at the edges of your unmounted transparency that you didn't

see unless you are aware of this and frame your composition

accordingly. This isn't critical for some styles of photography

where the background is blurred or a uniform color.

 

Perhaps the confusing part of this discussion is that all standard

slide mounts cover up some of this extra space around the edge that

you never saw to begin with. Be aware of two things: 1) the slide

mount covers up less than the area you didn't see, and 2) slides are

rarely mounted dead center in the mount. If you're in the habit of

remounting all you keepers, then you know that there are often

surprises that await you. Sometimes they confirm that you really did

get the composition right. Other times you go looking for slide

mounts that crop off significant areas of the picture space.

Remounting to a different aspect ratio is permitted, as long as you

anticipated this at the time you took the picture :-)

I like it much better, but it is still a pretty close crop.

 

Perhaps this version can be uploaded to the same folder, Charo.

Carl,

"Yes, the feet are slightly too low in the frame.... But that minor flaw didn't detract from it's excellence", is the full quote. And I didn't say it wasn't at least "very good", even if I stopped short of "excellent". I can't explain away the "didn't detract" part, making a claim of total synchronism of minds between myself and the elf. We part ways after the dots. I think the flaw does detract.

The elf rightly brought our attention to the "minor flaw". This statement of qualification is in itself quite rare in the usually gushy elf-language, and I think he or she should be congratulated for his or her candour. A lively discussion has certainly ensued, has it not?

That the picture has one major flaw, a flaw that is easy to spot and therefore to discuss, is a good thing. A picture full of flaws so as to a failed shot doesn't foster any comments other than, "What a dog of a picture!", if even that.

To anyone reading this who thinks that this is all quibbling, that is not so. The difference between a well-focused, colorful, interesting, well-captured shot with a noticeable flaw and a well-focused, colorful, interesting, well-captured shot without that flaw is the difference between chalk and cheese. Eliminating the flaw is what we should be striving to achieve in our photography.

Criticising a photograph's flaws is not necessarily a nasty or negative activity. It can be quite constructive, if meant well (even if misguided) and taken well, even if the photographer doesn't agree. In my own case, I feel disappointed for Charo that the picture wasn't better framed (no matter what the viewfinder shows or doesn't show, it is still possible to frame a picture well). If Charo doesn't share my disappointment, then that's fine by me too. The test will be whether Charo takes that little bit of extra care next time, and maybe produces a universal classic. I hope so, as there is obviously a good deal of talent there.

I love this image, and hope that some day my own photography will reward me with images as good as what I see in Charo's folder. So, may I humbly ask the experts: What works best for quickly and correctly "seeing" the composition in a viewfinder? I use nice cameras with viewfinders full of focus brackets, exposure data, stock exchange quotes, and other stuff I'm still learning about. Are all these distractions part of the reason for the composition errors that seem so blindingly obvious after developing? Is there some other trick I'm still missing? Thanks in advance!

Forgive my choice of words, above: By "experts", I'm referring to anyone here who knows more about such things than I do. (Which is probably just about everyone! :-) Cheers.

Tony, I think the only reason the feet were pointed out in the

description was because it was obvious and therefore had to be

addressed. Stating that the flaw does not detract from the image is

typical elf oversell, so no, I don't see any new ground being broken.

 

Eric, use a tripod not just to help with sharpness and DOF issues, but

also to let you carefully frame your shot and study it in detail. The

distance from the element(s) to the edge(s) of the picture space

should be carefully considered. Avoid moving subjects for a while . .

.

This is a great image, like a painting for me; so great how they disect the transition of color turning the photo into an action.

This is a very, very great picture.

Charo, Vivat!!!!!!!!!!!!

The difference between a well-focused, colorful, interesting, well-captured shot with a noticeable flaw and a well-focused, colorful, interesting, well-captured shot without that flaw is the difference between chalk and cheese. True -- and let me add that a "technically" flawless image - perfectly composed, exposed etc.... can oft times be boring, colorless, dull and common place.

I also agree that the "reason for POW" often does not address an obvious or subtle "flaw" and probably should. I can't think of one image that has been totally flawless - at least to someone. For Tony the feet hurt the image badly - For me - ever so slightly. It is always interesting to read the various takes on the POW. Always something to learn and think about...

I can think of a lot of images on this site, including POWs that I

consider flawless, meaning I can't think of a thing I would do, or

would have done, to improve it. Images may be seen as commonplace or

boring, but this is often just a genre preference. It does raise the

question "how many people have to like it, besides your mother, before

it can be called interesting, or beautiful, or clever and are some

people better qualified to make that determination than others?" . .

. . . .

Great portfolio and great shot. You got a great eye Charo. There's something about these "passing by" shots that I find really interesting. I have a couple of galleries dedicated to the "genre" on my site:

 

Passing by in Cuba

Passing by in Mexico

Mary,

I wasn't writing about "technically flawless" images. A technical flaw can quite often be irrelevant to the image's success. I also used the word "interesting" in my description of a successful image, trying to get past mere technical considerations which can, I readily admit, still leave us with a boring image.

The HCB print I posted above was expensive, but I thought it was brilliant... until I looked closer at a larger enlargement than usual and I just couldn't bring myself to buy it because of the flaw that disturbed me. If I was going to purchase an HCB (parting with several thousand dollars in the process), then I wanted it perfect in every way.

To me this POW has more than a technical flaw. To me it is an artistic flaw, spoiling an otherwise very good image. The subject is not a fabulously original one ("kids and colored walls" shots are everywhere, a subset of the larger category of "colored wall" shots that inhabit postcards the world over... there are even a few posted in this thread), so it needed to be something special to rise above the background noise of similar shots. It started off well in that the kids had an interesting tangle of limbs that miraculously seemed to work together; the shadow is really special, something that puts the image this could have been into the "more than usually original" class... but the wrong viewfinding detracted from that potential. Correct viewfinding would have made this much closer to a killer shot.

Correct viewfinding (is that a verb?) comes from experience. You don't need a tripod. You need to know your camera, not from a brochure or a technical specification sheet - that's for process photographers - but from constant use, and failures to achieve the intended result. "Try harder next time, remembering the problems of last time," is a pretty good motto in any field of human endeavour. For example, I was mucking around with this shot for ten minutes, salivating about the "definitive" look of it and the expressions, before I realised I should think a little about my framing too - and I nearly missed it, getting the keeper only on the last frame exposed. Sheer inexperience.

Of course you don't need to be inexperienced to make a blunder. We all make them, no matter how long we've been taking photographs. I reckon Charo just got so excited about the potential of the image, maybe trying too hard to capture more of the shadow and forgot about the lower boundary of the pic. If I had a dollar for every time I've done that myself...

The current troublesome idiosyncracy, in my own photography, I need to fix is "tilt" in my pictures. A half-degree lopsidedness has crept into my current snaps. I think it's because I need a new -2 dioptre eyepiece adapter, and (because I haven't got round to ordering one) am using my left (and better) eye instead of my right to look through the finder. Stupid, eh?... but it affects the final results to a point that I throw out some otherwise good shots because they're tilted. But I can't complain about it, as it's my own laziness that has prevented me ordering a new eyepiece. I should just fix it. I will fit it. Tomorrow. I promise.

By the same token, Charo should fix that viewfinder or learn more about its idiosyncracies. Or remember next time what happened here and step back a little... whatever... there is a solution, and we shouldn't simply say how wonderful this shot is and just leave it at that. It's a fine photograph, but could have been really excellent.

"The difference between a well-focused, colorful, interesting, well-captured shot with a noticeable flaw and a well-focused, colorful, interesting, well-captured shot without that flaw is the difference between chalk and cheese."

Did you just write "well-focussed", Tony ? The feet is now a resolved matter, but how sure is anyone that this picture was actually well-focussed AND taken at a fast enough shutter-speed ?

Compare for example with the picture I proposed as my favorite among Charo's... I read above that it was a scanning problem, but if you have a look at the large version, and if it was scanned using the same scanner as this favorite of mine, please someone explain to me the huge difference in sharpness...

Either it is a scanning issue, but then it means the picture was really very badly scanned. IF it was scanned on the same scanner as my favorite shot of Charo's, then, clearly, this POW would just not be focussed properly. Or it could also be a very mild camera shake...(?)

"A technical flaw can quite often be irrelevant to the image's success." - Tony Dummett.

While I agree with this to some extent, Tony, I truly don't think a picture of THIS kind, can afford to be out of focus. Which leads me to ask you: what sort of success are we talking about...?

Yes, I can still "like" an out of focus shot, and I do like this one, but if it's blurry, it goes back to the drawer for me. As I was working for SIPA, many years ago, and shooting this sort of pictures on regular basis, it wouldn't even have crossed my mind to put a single blurry shot, even as good as this one, on the Editor's table. Would have been pointless.

When photographing RARE moments of life, magazines and editors of all kinds do buy about anything, no matter how blurry - simply because they can't get a better shot -, but not so for simple general purpose stock-like imagery. And can you imagine this image enlarged to a 16" width print...? I just can't. And I'm surprised, Tony, that you made no mention about the sharpness issue. Are you assuming it's a scanning problem alone that caused this...?

As for the feet, I read somewhere that the feet were actually hidden by the slide-mount, and that someone saw the "full" version... I also saw a link to this attachment but faced "URL not found" when clicking on it. I would certainly be interested in seeing this rescan. But where is it...? I'd like to know, in order to see how it looks with the feet in, but also to see whether the new scan is any sharper... Can the image maybe be posted in this thread ? Or can we have a link that works...?

To Marc,

 

I´ve just read your long post, and one small remark: you´ve said that I´ve got some shots in my portfolio that deserve the POW much more than this one (taking into account the scanning proccess and their results).

 

If you only had read the "Camera Type" then, you will know the reason of their sharpeness: Yes! It´s a digital camara! And the third one was shot with the FM10, but since I like that photo so much I got a copy print, so my flatbed scanner works much better with prints than with slides.

...here it is.

Tony - See your point and agree. Well said. Still, "interesting" is a subjective word. This shot just "does" something for me. As to the tilt thing -- I totally relate. It happens to me when I'm in a hurry which I often am - unfortunately - in the kind of work I have to do.. But I am getting better and now only do it 10% of the time instead of 40%.. ;-)

Marc, I didn't want to get involved in a general autopsy of this picture. I was using the opportunity provided by something the elves specifically mentioned (and which has been taken up by others) to illustrate a few worthwhile points.

 

You could put my position this way: small technical flaws can ruin a picture. Conversely, even large technical flaws can be irrelevant to (or even contribute to) the success of a picture. Whether this is well-focussed or not isn't all that important to me. If it's only reproduced in 800-pixel format in the bottom-left corner of a brochure then it's sharp enough. If it's going to be purchased from a stock agency for a a featured airline poster, then it has to be looked at a little closer. What detracts from it, in my mind at any resolution, is the viewfinder error, much more important (regarding what I wanted to say) than its focus. But even then, some have been happily able to put aside this gross compositional error and accept the picture as a good one. So I guess that means its fans think it's not such a gross error after all, eh?

 

As semantics have raised their ugly head, here perhaps I could offer a tentative definition of what I think of as a "gross compositional error" (at great risk of further semantic dissection): a "gross compositional error" is an error of spatial geometry in the framing or presentation of a photograph - irrespective of whether in absolute terms it is large or small - that interferes with the enjoyment of a significant proportion of viewers of the picture, in inverse proportion to the error's distance from the edge of the frame.

 

This does not only apply to photography.

 

To illustrate the point, let me tell you a story. I once had a girlfriend who, as we were walking out to the car, dropped her cigarette. Cursing, she picked it up, dusted it off and continued to smoke it. She was still smoking it when we merged into heavy traffic. Then she dropped it again... this time between her legs and, because she was wearing a very short skirt, it reached those warm and sensitive areas that God did not intend cigarettes to ever reach. She squealed, reflexively dropped her foot like a lead brick onto the accellerator while trying to retrieve the butt, and rammed into the car in front. Spot the mistake.

 

The first clumsiness was benign in outcome. The second clumsiness, exactly the same in every way, was a bloody disaster. It got worse. The car in front was full of young Greek kids. The driver had borrowed it (wthout her knowledge) from his mother. The car that the girlfriend and I was in wasn't hers (it belonged to the employer of a friend of hers), and she didn't have a driver's license. The damage was extensive. When I got out of the car to speak to the other driver and to the beat cop who was approaching, I turned around to see her high-tailing it down the median strip of Oxford St. Sydney, smoke billowing out from her skirt, yelling back at me to, "Just take care of it Tony!" (the story does not end there, but that is all I can tell of it in this forum). Dropping a cigarette butt when you have no headroom for error can be disastrous.

 

Likewise, a millimetre's worth of framing error can do harm to a composition, out of all proportion to its absolute measure.

Thanks to Khoda for the attachment !

And thanks for this explanation, Tony. I see what you mean... (and the cigarette story was quite entertaining...:-)

Charo,

How glad I am to see this rescan ! It does make quite a difference... We've got the feet, we lost the over-sharpening, and it seems a bit sharper as well - at least at this size... So I start to be able to enjoy the shot for its many good sides... I still wish for extreme sharpness here, since I'd like to really see the wall texture, but this now starts to resemble a good POW selection.

This brings me to the following conclusion: wouldn't it be a good idea to inform photographers a bit earlier about their selection - or potential selection ? -, so that they can rescan an image if necessary, or such...?

It took a week for all of us to see this picture at its best. I feel it's a bit sad. Charo and all of us would probably have enjoyed this POW a lot more if we had seen the improved version from day one. Of course, another way to look at it would be to consider that we had an interesting discussion about these missing feet...:-)

Beautiful!