music Madredeus (Portugal)

Thanks, Bert.

I wonder if we could be told the make of the lens. Pushing the film would account for some grain but the picture still looks to have been shot out of focus.

Somewhere around here I have some Tri-X images of a Jackson Browne concert I shot at Ravina (Chicago, north shore) back in the summer of 1978. That film was pushed two stops and is nowhere near as fuzzy as this POW. This could be a factor of film emulsion, type of developer used and/or human control (temperature of soup, time the film was left in it) of the development process--or, the scan itself and/or the software treatment it receivfed in order to get it to us in JPEG format.

James Caird wrote:

> Optimum prints of 35mm negatives are 5" x 7"

 

I've often wondered at this.. the aspect ratio of a 35mm neg is 1:1.5. The aspect ratio of a 5x7 is 1:1.4, a 8x10 is 1.25 and a 4x6 (and 8x12) is 1:1.5.

 

It seems to me that to get an uncropped 35mm print (with as little paper wasted as possible) one needs a 4x6 or some multiple thereof. Why are 5x7 and 8x10 so prevalent? Is there some weird historical neg size that made these the standard? I only ask out of idle curiosity.

 

Now, re: the photo.

 

I agree that there are focus an exposure problems but overall I like the tone and mood of this photo alot. Maybe this is because this is just the type of photo I'm into taking right now (available light photos of musicians in bars/studios, etc) but I think it stands well on it's own. I like the high contrast and the fore/mid/background placement of the musicians. In my experience, the movement of the musicians and dark lighting in these situations make nailing focus *very* difficult and in many cases the blur lends a nice dynamic feeling to the image. In this case I could go either way.

 

What really sells it for me is that I get the feeling that this is just what the bar/hall/venue looked like -- dark, smoky, contrasty, gritty, etc. Heck, with a couple of drinks in me it would look a little blurry too.

 

Probably another pass at scanning and digital darkrooming is in order but, even as it is, I think it's an evocative image. Well done.

 

Dennis, what kind of response did you expect? If you limited yourself to discussion of photography here then these issues could never arise.

 

Well captured moment with which many are familiar and can empathise. Risky going for 3 b&ws on the trot - but then the colorists are free to whine as the others did I suppose.Wonder how many comments "Team POW" will manage this week ;-)

Congratulations on achieving this award.

I don't like sports photography very much and this is essentially sports photography dressed up in B&W jazz. It's still a decent shot in terms of composition and mood, but let down on the technical side by the out-of-focus singer (the guitarist seems to be the subject in this regard) and weird, organic grain. The microphone is very ugly/clumsy and somewhat distracting because of it. Almost.

I agree that it is risky going for three black and white shots in a row for POW, and it is so unlikely that I should like them all, but I do!! And it is NOT because it is in black and white -- I see loads of rubbish in black and white, not least the innumerable failures that come out of my camera for weeks on end between shots I like -- but these three photos have been genuinely good.

 

You have got to stop pretending this is yearbook photography! You dont need detail over a ten stop range to make a photograph powerful; you dont even need the focus to be crystal clear. Very often you do, and I personally feel that these "faults" are overused in todays photography to the point where they lose their effectiveness and are revealed as the shoddy workmanship that they often actually are. But holding all photos to the same technical sophistication is neither necessary, nor practical in the real world (for example, this shot is never going to look like it was lit with two softboxes and shot on Pan F).

 

Im not stupid enough to say you cant get sharper pictures with more shadow detail in similar conditions -- indeed, I have many. But in this photo, for instance, what would be gained by giving more exposure at camera level?

 

I can think of some things that would be compromised by more exposure. 1) The womans dress would show detail including clear outlines of her arm and hand -- this would distract from her strong presence caused by the blackness of her form against the smoky light. 2) Contrast would be reduced -- again with the effect I just mentioned. 3) The shaft of light illuminating the man at left would be less visible and therefore less effective. To me this is vital, because it emphasises the dark corner at the top-left of the photo -- try covering this dark corner with your hand to see how much it affects the compositions balance. Dramatic, no?

 

As for sharpness, with respect, Mr. Schuler, I think the focus is fairly close -- certainly nothing like six feet off. If anything, the focus is a nice compromise between the woman and her companions, and the large depth of field actually surprises me (given the circumstances), and lends credit to the notion that this was cropped. I dont think this is a wide open shot though (what aperture does Canons 105 open to anyway?). This looks like f/4 or so to me, though where the photographer got that sort of light I dont know. Also, the photograph is not nearly as soft as you suggest. You can count the four strings on the mans instrument in the background, and see the shape of the shadow of the womans earring on her neck. Again though, what positive attributes would a sharper image posses that this one doesnt? (I do hate the mushy grain but suspect the print is better.)

 

I like this sort of contrasty light which often so beautifully accentuates a womans jaw, although here she was caught at a non-flattering moment. She is intense, certainly, but sometimes the sheer aristocratic beauty of a woman like this can be even more intense. I would love to have been there with a camera!

To Mr. Schuler and Mr. Vuksanovic -- youre joking about what the subject is, arent you? The woman is overwhelmingly commanding the viewers attention here, through a clever combination of subject placement (centred, and with her face higher than the others), lighting (bright background contrasting with her darkness, as well as the light on her face), the moment chosen (intensity of expression versus the bland expressions of the men), composition (darkness on both lower sides with a space in the middle for her to stand), and even the fact that she is female whilst everyone else (okay, only two) are male.

 

Forgive me for saying this, but for all your fancy language, the pair of you seem like babes in the woods when it comes to any picture with a multifaceted or complex composition. Forgive me also for lumping the two of you together.

Samuel did an excellent job saying a few of the things I was going to say. I will come back to that after some comments on the photograph.

 

I think that this is a great photograph. It's a fine shot of a band playing, full of atmosphere and feeling. It works in an art context and an editorial context. There are some options to change it though. For example, if this was to be used as a photo of the singer, it would help to hold back the left side until it was tonally closer to the right side. However, it works fine as is.

 

Regarding the sharpness comments, which Samuel discussed briefly...sharpness is a technical characteristic that may or may not matter. In a book of scientific photographs of insects, sharpness is paramount. In many photos, it is hardly the most important thing. If someone comments on the sharpness of one of my photos, I look to see what I did wrong. I don't want photos (mine or others) that convey "sharpness," I want photos that convey feeling and emotion, tell me something.

 

In particular, concert photos are NEVER about sharpness. Take a look at any decent book of concert photos and you will see this. I've done work for Polygram and other labels, and they have never asked for sharpness. Take a look at CD covers, music magazines (and I have had unsharp photos published in them), books about music, it's never about sharpness. It's about feeling, atmosphere, culture.

 

And this photo has plenty of that. It doesn't need silly commentary from, as Samuel put it, "babes in the woods."

To call this basically sports photography shows an apparent lack of understanding or appreciation for either.

 

I don't mean to knock sports photographers but it is easier to do in my opinion. (Not meaning everyone can do it just that it's easier than concert photography.) You usually only have 2-3 songs wich equates to about 10-15 minutes at best to photograph the performance. You are in a area where you have little room to move and have to avoid bumping into and getting in the way of the other photographers there. Also sharing the area with the security crew as well as any other people that have fallen in, although this was probably not a problem here :). In addition the light levels you are dealing with are generally low and constantly changing out of your control unlike the most fields that are evenly lit inlucding most of the public fields in my area. Oh, and while most performers are aware of the fact that they are being photographed and try to make an attempt to work for the photographers they are really there for the crowd. There's a great section on concert photography here in the Learn section if anyone is interested.

 

Based on the grain I would guess that the scan is a bit soft and the entire image seems reasonably sharp. If there is any softness in the singer it seems to be because of motion blur (caused by the singer) not from a focus error although I don't really find to be as soft as people claim. The DOF and the sharpness throughout the scene under these conditions first caught my attention with this shot when it was first uploaded. I've written enough but would just like to state I agree completely with Samuel and Jeff.

 

I'm very happy to see a concert shot make POW as we've had most every type of other field covered. Nice to see it be in black and white too :)

While I appreciate the elves choosing another black and white photo, I must admit this is my least favorite of the three. Like a previous poster, I really have little patience with sports and concert photos--don't get me wrong, I love sports (play in basketball league and local tournament tennis)and music. However, neither subject lends itself particularly well to artistic photography. Concerts are meant to be heard and sports are meant to be played or watched--photographs of either genre usually seem especially two-dimensional.

 

This particular concert shot is ok, nowhere near the quality of the past two b&w shots. Several posters have pointed out some technical weaknesses in the photo: I'll defer to their adept commentaries. I think the ratings so far have been rather generous, especially for those unfamiliar with the musicians displayed here. I've seen far better concert shots here on photo.net, both in terms of technique and expression.

 

Don't get me wrong, however. This isn't a bad photo. It's just not in the same league as the photos of the past two weeks.

 

If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know...

 

-louis "satchmo" armstrong

I think the ratings so far have been rather generous

I think this is a general trend on photo.net. You'll notice some photographers seem to be deleting their photos and reposting the identical images to take advantage of that.

Tom,

I didn't know that people were reposting photos they've already had rated. That's sad. I have noticed the ratings scale has changed significantly over the past few months--it seems like it's moved up at least a point on both sides, perhaps two. While ratings don't matter, it's really hard to compare scores given several months ago with scores today. I'm not sure whether it's worth getting overly concerned with, as I watch my marginal portfolio sink deeper into the morass of photo.net. . . .

This photograph does nothing for me.

 

Must be a matter of personal taste.

As for sharpness, with respect, Mr. Schuler, I think the focus is fairly close -- certainly nothing like six feet off. If anything, the focus is a nice compromise between the woman and her companions, and the large depth of field actually surprises me (given the circumstances), and lends credit to the notion that this was cropped.

We won't know if this is a full-frame image or not unless the photographer tells us.

My estimate of the focus being six or seven feet off is based on the observation that the guitar player appears to be better focused than the singer, and I judge the former musician to be sitting about six feet to the rear.

Now it might be that the photographer focused on the guitar player for a reason, or focused on a spot mid-stage and missed his focus. Who knows? Achieving critical focus under low-light conditions is always a hassle.

That doesn't mean it's undesirable, though. Lack of clear focus can be a useful feature of an image--they sell filters downtown just for this purpose. I just don't see how soft focus enhances this picture.

I agree with Tom re Vuk's comment on sports photography. For one thing that's how I used to earn my bread and chesse--shooting sports--and for another this image isn't about sports but about artists at work, and the two are not the same.

You mentioned exposure vis-a-vis the woman's dress and arm, Samuel. That may be a good point, though I'll say again: the rule of thumb for negatives is to expose for the shadows and let the highlights take care of themselves. (Reverse that for tranparancies.) I'm not convinced the dynamic range of this scene outstrips a negative's capture ability, so why not? But again, you could have a point that less detail equates into more with this image. Of course, we couldn't know that for sure without seeing the difference.

Having shot thousands of rolls of concert photos as a staff photographer at the Kerrville Folk Festival, I feel compelled to dispel the notions that this is a good photograph.

 

No. 1) Technical problems. Take a close look at the large version if this image. The grain shows obvious reticulation, which is a result of improper processing, usually from not keeping the chemistry at proper temperatures. The processing probably caused the almost total absence of gray tones in this photo.

 

No. 2) Artistic problems. Not one of the three musicians is doing anyting interesting. The singer has her eyes closed, she's facing away from the camera, and she's has her lips pressed against the microphone. The other two musicians are similarly boring.

 

Now for the good part - this is excellent lighting, lending the photo a moody feeling. Just looking at it makes me remember nights sitting in a smoky club with a waitress bringing single malt whisky to my table. The composition is very good considering that the photographer had no control over how the stage was laid out.

 

That said, this one would have gone in my trash can.

If so, very out of touch with reality; pity no one really debated with Brian M. last week - his was a valid point , "what if colour were first?"- but let us not revive a tiresome debate.

If the administrators of this site have "gone over" to B&W just because of 1) the sheer number of complaints of the color schlock they presented before or 2) in the belief that B&W="classic" then I'd have to agree with you. It's yet another shame that their only participation in the POW (other than its selection) is limited to the "funny" rationales they give for why the image was picked.

Next to useless, those.

I actually like this picture's ambience--I love jazz music, seedy club scenes--and if it were presented more smartly I could justify a grade in the 7-7 range, say.

Which brings up another point: subjects. There seems to be an element on the server which thinks it's okay to grade up or (as is usually the case) down according to whether or not they like the subject of a photograph. That strkes me as dumb.

For example: on last week's POW there was reference (with a lnik) to a photograph of bondage uploaded by Amy Powers. As anyone who read that thread knows I am against such uploads for the reason I stated then. Having said as much, that would not cause me to grade that particular image poorly. Actually, I wouldn't grade it at all, but if I did grade that picture I'd be sure to assign this score based on the picture's merits rather than my philosophy re bondage and all that.

I also notice that images normally receive lower grades before they become POW's. Another strong indication that these grades are not well conceived in the first place and ought to be ditched. Permanently.

What's wrong with black and white? Ok rhetorical question I really mean what's wrong with the people complaining about a black and white image being selected as pow? Nobody has ever said "gee, three color pow's in a row! how daring."

 

I shoot both color and black and white and enjoy them both. With color photography though I don't feel like I'm putting as much into it. I click the shutter then it's up to the lab to finish the job although by rating the film differently and pushing I have some more creative control. More often then not it goes to digital for some adjustments.

 

With black and white I have to think more and I do more of the work myself. I'm in control of every variable. For me it's more enjoyable. It doesn't make it any more or less artistic. In this case though I think black and white was the best choice. Grain in black and white is more pleasing to most people than grainy color images. And shooting in these conditions you'll have a lot of grain either way. From looking at this image my guess would be that there was some manipulation done at the time of printing. With color film under these conditions the results can be very unpredictable.

 

I got the post exposure babble out now on to what makes this art. This looks very deliberate and not just a lucky grab. Look at the rest of this folder and you'll see what I mean. I remember my high school music teacher asking a question on the first day of class... "What is music?" His answer being anything that is created with the intent to make music is music. Anything from a composer working with a full orchestra to someone tapping his thumb on a desk. The same can be applied to art. Photographic art isn't created in the fraction of a second that the light hits the film but in the time the photographer previsualizes and composes the scene. Their previous experience and technical skills play into the equation as far as coming up with something tangible to share with others. What happens before the shutter is pressed is what makes the difference between photographic art and a snapshot... Not the type of film, lab, paper, camera you use. I have the opinion that POW should highlight art not snapshots. You can't wander through the site without for more than a few seconds without seeing someone's snapshot. Even with the recent ratings inflation that's been going on the random photo on the home page and the top rated pages have really been cluttered with snapshots in my opinion.

 

Nothing is going to appeal to everyone, obviously, but lets hope that POW selections continue to provide us with art in different photographic genres that truly are a cut above the rest of the photos. Not necassarily the best photo on photo.net but something worthy of discussion. More importantly lets try and make the discussions of those photos more meaningful than the types of comments left on other photos. I have to say that recently this has gotten a lot better.

 

As for the comment that the top photographers not being present anymore to make their comments on POW.... It's only Monday. The photo was posted late... and their probably out doing the work they have to do to jockey for position on the Top Rated list. It's not easy deleting and repost whole folders, going through all your ratings and removing any image that you don't think has a high enough rating, getting people to rate your photos higher and others on the list lower.

Tris, is your estimate of the focus point based on your previous misconception that a 50mm lens was used or on the 105mm lens the photographer states was used?

I believe I wrote that when I wondered what the focal length might have been, though I was fairly sure it wouldn't have been past mid-tele range due to what I perceived to be the nature of the venue. That is, this looked to me have been shot indoors in a smaller space where the photographer would probably have been closer, rather than outdoors on where a larger stage would be possible and thus call, possibly, for a longer lens--depending, always, on where the photogrpher stood.

The longer the focal length the more compact will be the perspective, however, so I'm not sure you're headed in the right direction with this.

On my monitor the large version of this photo looks soft, but not that much out of focus. I was looking at the woman's ear ring and it looks to be out of plumb suggesting she is in fact moving and that the soft focus may actually be due to motion blur as stated previously.

Could be. I've got a 19" monitor and I noticed the lack of resolution immediately. You're right, though, it only got worse when I clicked on the LARGE button. But then it always does, yes?

I would also be interested in your theory on atmospheric distortion caused by the smoke generators.

Next to none if it's a dry cloud. If that were real fog, however, it could (would) easily bend the light, and especially with color in play the effects could either be spectacular or dreadful.

Also please factor in the fact that this was shot outside in the summer. We of course will have no idea what the relative humidity was unless the photographer tells us.

I went back and read the photographer's piece earlier but didn't catch anything other than reference to the stage. But I think it's a moot point either way.

Inside or outside, the lens used would be a function of where the photographer stood in relation to what size of image he wanted to capture. And again, the longer the focal length the more compact the perspective will appear.

If you want to make a case for relative humidty: I'm from the midwest and when I worked professionally that's where I shot and it's usually humid there in the 85-90 range during the summer, especially in Chicago where I was stationed during 1978-79, with next to no visible effects for this kind of work that I was able to see.

I suppose all this wants to connect itself (assuming it isn't simply your idea of humor) with my assessment that the focus seems to be six or seven feet off. Again, I judged that by the appearance of the guitarist, who seems to be more or less in focus while the singer is not. With a longer focal length than a 50mm then that distance might well be more than six or seven feet. Also, while camera shake and subject movement could well account for some of the softness, I just don't see the woman "moving" all that fast in this situation--she appears to straining into a note and I'd suppose her motion at that moment to be on the sedate side, if not for all intents and purposes still. (When's the last time you saw a jazz performance where the people were junping all over the place? This isn't a picture of The Rolling Stones at Leeds, you know.)

IMHO. The tonal range of the singer's face and dress is just awful. Certainly not the result I would want from a good B&W emulsion. The composure, the subject, the mood and the feeling the shot evokes is good, very good. But I think the musicians in the back look better overall than the main subject and the lack of tack sharpness here hurts and does not help. Alen, I really like your portfolio here on photo.net, but so many of your other shots have the needed detail, sharpness and tonal range to make it a successful shot, again, IMHO.

Dave, you've said nothing to insult me (I've a thick skin) so take this as straight query: 1) what makes you suppose I'm here to make a name for myself? and 2) why would it matter if a picture I happen to dislike sold like hotcakes down on Main Street?

I doubt if any of the photographs I've panned would sell anywhere, if you want to know. But I just wonder why it is that public acceptance means so much to you. It means little to me, so I'm genuinely curious.

As for "art" and making money and all that: I used to make money with my camera, as a photojournalist, but I've never claimed to be an "artist." Then again, I'd guess anyone who creates photographs is an artist at one level or the next.

He must be, musn't he?

As an aside: have you not the wit to see the various egos at work on this site, and to imagine why some of these people say the things they do? Take yourself, for instance. You've gone out of your way to address me (obliquely) out of name twice in the same paragraph. Why? If I am actually an idiot, should it not be easy enough to merely confront the idiotic thoughts I express and expose those to ridicule? In that manner you could easily "put me in my place" while saving face on your end and proving yourself to be the smarter man. As it happens, all you do is prove that this forum is not in any way censored--a good thing in theory, though the results tends to be mixed in the real world--and suggest (strongly) that you have not good counterpoint to offer my "idiocy."

Think about that the next time you feel the need to hurl an insult. And then wonder who's laughing at whom around here.

Let us stay silent this week, eh? Just keep our miserable and envious thoughts off the page. Let us try to make a picture worthy of POW instead of talking about it. Is that a deal???

That is definitely not a deal. I'm here to talk photography and learn something if I can. Keeping you warm and fuzzy is the least of my concerns.

Please refrain from telling little comparative 'stories' that cause me to spew fizzy pop through my nose and onto my keyboard.

 

It really hurts.

 

(Do you think we could get a bunch of us together for a little group photo... Tris pouncing in from the left, and terrified faces of fleeing photographers on the right?)

 

As for your lamentations on the quickly-descending quality of discussion on photo.net, I think I predicted it more than a year ago on the dying twister POW.

 

I've been an online citizen for, oh, about 15 YEARS NOW and it happens time and time again. There are several types of online users that will destroy any intelligent group conversation.

 

1. Troll. This is Tris Schuler. He specialises in getting you pissed off so you waste precious screen real-estate refuting his statements. 95% he probably doesn't himself believe in. He'd just rather you paid attention to him.

 

2. Offtopic posters. This includes people like me, that try in a forum like this to get a forum like this fixed. Instead of posting about the POW, I'm posting about how this forum is fundamentally broken. It also includes about half the other posts here from lamers that just say: "Wow. This is great. Wow." without really saying anything of value. I said this in more detail a year ago on the dying twister POW.

 

3. Flamers. People like you that flame trolls or offtopic posters. Vuk Vuksanovic also falls in this category. These people are otherwise intelligent but don't see the troll for what he is.

 

Just to get an idea of a moderation system that sorta kinda (but just barely) works, go to Slashdot.Org and read all comments rated 4 or above on a story. Then change your filter settings to read all comments. You'll get the idea real fast.

 

Slashdot almost *DIED* because it waited so long to implement a comment moderation system. Photo.Net will die if it doesn't. I've seen it happen dozens of times.

 

Unfortunately, with popularity comes the necessity for a comment ratings/moderation system.

I'm here to talk photography and learn something if I can

 

With all due respect, Tris, IMHO your posts don't always give the impression you are quite keen to learn as you suggest.

 

As for this image, I find the central position of the singer makes the image too static. I would have tried to place her to one side of the frame and allowed space, preferably to her left. However, the limitations imposed on this occasion (mentioned by the photographer) make it hard for anyone to move to a more suitable position.

 

The central figure is not as sharp as the two musicians, which is disappointing. I don't think this is scanning, it is likely to be focus. There are better images in Alen's music folder, so I guess it was chosen to stimulate debate rather than as an example of excellence.

With all due respect, Tris, IMHO your posts don't always give the impression you are quite keen to learn as you suggest.

Why? Because I don't pepper my remarks with silly Net acronyms like "IMHO"? And just how does one best go about the process of learning? By never venturing his opinion, by sitting idly by while the site is overwhelmed with comments like, "Gee, that's swell!"

Thanks for your feedback.