Untitled

You can tell right away that this is medium-format film. The richness of tones: deep blacks, clean detailed whites, every tone of gray between, all there for the eye to relish.

It was my pleasure to browse through your entire portfolio here. It is stunning. If you aren't doing this for a living it isn't because you lack the talent.

Nothing more I can say. For those who say film is dead, this image should be rebuttal enough.

Feedback on my work is also appreciated.

Please note the following:

• 
  
• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
  
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum .
  
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
  
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Please give your reasons for why you like the image or not. Short negative or positive congrats comments will be deleted. Please give a real critique. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.
  

The light in this picture is simply exquisite, and elevates this composition tremendously. The arrangement of the figures is intereesting, too, though I think the faces being too dark somewhat detracts from it, but the backlighting was too severe to hope for shadow detail in the faces. All in all, an awesome shot that conveys the mood so effectively. The left-right orientation of the image leads the eye gently from the sitting foreground figure to the medim figures, and to the background light that suggests a celestial presence, like the Apostles waiting in the room for the appearance of a post-resurrection Christ.

The lighting is beautiful, that's true. Composition: Ok, although there are a couple of dark objects near the bright edges, and a bright spot near the dark edge, that could be addressed. Black and white tonality: lovely--Very well done.

Still, the picture leaves me a little unimpressed because I am not pulled into it so much as I am kept distant. The unemotional and reserved expressions presented by the three most distant figures impede my progress. To get closer, I have to deal with them as their engagement with the camera takes precedence. As a casual observer, it is far more comfortable to remain where I am, viewing safely from afar. Remove the three distant figures, possibly the boy on the far right, maybe even the seated figure on the left, and the photo has so much more impact.

Doug's rendition feels strangely empty because it eliminates so much of the picture. I think the circular orientation of the figures is a strength rather than a weakness of the image. And, I also think the wide tonal range, a product of the fact this is a scan of a film negative--remember those?--and the fact the Ilford HP 5 has a high contrast range, somwhat like the T-Max. It is one of the pleasures of working with film trying to get a handle of the quirks of a particular film or media, and I somewhat rue the demise of of the craft at the altar of the new-fangled DSLRs. So, I think this images imperfections are what make it more compelling. It leaves undisturbed the natural tendencies of light in such a setting, and therin, IMO, lies the strength of this image. Toning it down, again IMO, is akin to finishing Schubert's "Unfinished Symphony", cloning in arms on the Venus de Milo, or airbrushing the nose onto a picture of the Sphinx of Giza.

Emmanuel, I was wondering what you were going to think of my alterations. Thanks for posting a response.
I agree with you about the circular orientation. I just don't feel that the eye contact is helping the circle go around. It tends to flatten it out and stop it, in my opinion. The changes might feel empty to you because you saw the fully populated version first. Also note that I did nothing (other than sloppy cloning) to change the light or contrast. I agree with you absolutely about the tonal range: it's magnificent.

I'm not sure if film has captured this scene better, or more faithfully, than could be digitally possible; that's probably a discussion for another page.

Regarding this part of your comment:

Well, I'm not sure I agree completely with that because, this photograph, while full of qualities, does not exist on a level of virtuosity equivalent to your examples (but that's just my opinion).

Also, in a joking manner, I think it could be argued that a) Schubert would have finished his symphony had he been so motivated, and b) both the Venus de Milo, and the Sphinx of Giza, were at one time fully formed with arms and noses, respectively. I might go as far to say that my taking away what I consider the less important contributions to be more like the sculptor's chisels carving the Venus, or the Sphinx, from the rock, or Schubert's mind, eliminating notes that didn't belong to his score.

Doug, honestly i think that cloning out a central character of this image is nothing but disrespectful towards the photographer, and, in this special case, completely unsensitive towards the character of the image. Not only did you clone out the central person who gives the composition its delicate balance, also you sacrificed the documentary character of the shot for a preferred aesthetics.

The image itself lives of its exotic stage and the already mentioned great tonal range. Adding the great postures it is certainly a great example of how to photograph relatively poor people without strapping it down to their poverty. very good one.

I understand that photographing against the light is not that easy. The exposure in this is really wonderful. I agree with Doug that there's too much destruction. Doug's version is more appealing to me. Congrats.

Moderator note: Luis - you need to understand that changes are made to images all the time and it is allowed on photo.net in forums. Sometimes the result improves the image and sometimes it does not.. and then again some people will agree and others will not. It's all in the spirit of discussion.

What strikes me about this photo is that the three men who got cloned out are all engaged with the camera, and therefore with me as the viewer. For me, they are the life of the photo, in addition to the wonderful light and storytelling. I don't think of it as a clean and neat photo, rather as a splice of real life with activity and energy providing its basis.

If there is a little more information, I wonder how the photographer would feel about lightening up the one guy's face who's kneeling on the stove. He could still be left in shadow, which works well in the image, but would you consider a touch more of a hint that there's a face there, rather than so much black? The guys who are catching the light really make the shot and provide much of the contrast and energy. My eye wants to travel around this frame and explore. It's a great "ensemble" piece. I often find it much harder and much more rewarding to take a good shot wide, one that tells a story and includes a lot in the frame, one that is complex rather than simple. Quite often, isolating a character or two or zooming in close is taking the easy way out. You did not do that here.

Doug, obviously your crop doesn't work for me. In this case, I agree with Florian, though I don't think you intended disrespect. I've seen many of your thoughtful critiques throughout the years and been happy to have some great dialogues with you. That being said, I think such a severe change to someone's photo sets you up for a severe critique yourself. I actually think you've crossed the line of critique and instead have simply created a new photo, imposing your vision for the photographer's. I don't like your photo near as much as I like the original. I, too, think you were eyeing the photo from your own perspective only and you missed the point the photographer was making. A good critique helps a photographer achieve his goal and doesn't move the goal post to the other side of the stadium. In very, very rare cases a good critique will help completely redefine the goal. This isn't one of those cases.

Thanks Florian, for your response. Understand that I mean no disrespect whatsoever to Luis, or his work.

To address your reply, which "central figure" did I remove? I looked at the image, followed the gaze of most of the subjects, and arrived at the man cooking, who I took to be the central figure. I sought to illustrate how much more centralized he (the cook) would have been had Luis caught the scene with four less individuals. I can't see any other subject as more central. If you remove any other characters, the picture is different, yes, that's my point. But the picture, to me, is all about the cook, and his place in this scene. Removing other characters merely shifts the emphasis more towards the cook. It doesn't, in my opinion, change the message of the picture.

As for the documentary nature of the shot, I agree, I completely destroyed it, but I am not suggesting that Luis manipulate the shot as I have indicated. I am simply raising the question that certain changes might strengthen the message. As it is, the message comes across to me as somewhat muddled. I may not have been clear about this intention in my previous postings.

As for the preferred aesthetic that both you and Fred suggest I am imposing on Luis picture, I confess, I am guilty of that. But that, it seems to me, is the heart of all criticism. Luis may reject it, or accept it, as he likes, and I can't tell him how to make his pictures fit his own aesthetic because I have no idea what his aesthetic is, and had not heard of him, or his work, until today. I responded to the picture, not his aesthetic, and didn't concern myself with what he was trying to say. I read the picture, and responded to what it was saying to me. (Believe me, I have tried to say volumes with my own photographs, only to say much less). I hope Luis can appreciate what I, as only one person, am am reading in his image.

This is clearly true, Fred, and precisely why I suggested they shouldn't be in the shot. I don't want to be engaged with them because I don't feel the photograph is about them. If it is about them, then ask the cook to leave, or place them in front of the cook so they can occupy a dominant place in the composition. Why would the "life of the photo" be composed in the background?

Wait... I thought it was the three guys in the back?

This is probably the crux of our disagreement. An ensemble works together. This picture is about several people interested in cooking, and several other people interested in a photographer.

I think I disagree with this, Fred. I appreciate complex images, sure, and yes, I see the question of simplifying this shot as exercising an aesthetic, but I don't agree it's the easy way out. I have witnessed a multitude of amazing potential photographs ruined by the cluttered presence of surrounding people, their stares, their elbows, arms, butts, heads, etc.. Patiently waiting for the complex to simplify, or angling for a less cluttered perspective is far more difficult, in my opinion, than standing back and capturing the ensemble.

Yes, please understand I meant no disrespect.

Point well taken, but if Luis had a goal for this photograph, he left few clues, not even a title. Should every viewer research the work of every photographer before offering a thought? The photograph stood before me and I heard what it was saying. I'm not implying that Luis missed his goal with this shot, but Fred, I hope you agree: sometimes the goal post does need to be moved.

"Why would the 'life of the photo' be composed in the background?"

Why not? Is there a place in a photo that the "life" is supposed to be?

Is the "life" of a photo always with the main subject? Is there, in fact, always a main subject? I didn't consider any of the people or either grouping to be the main subject. I took them as a whole. This photo, to me, is a tableau. Though the three guys in the background add life to the photo, I don't think they are the subject. But I also don't think the cook is the subject. I think the scene is the subject. The boy on the right with his hands on his head adds too much charm to be dismissed. What a great posture. You seem uncomfortable with the tension between some of the people being caught candidly and some being conscious of the camera. Why? I find it quite dynamic.

"The guys who are catching the light really make the shot" "Wait... I thought it was the three guys in the back?"

Yes, the three guys in the back. They are the ones mostly in the light. (For me, what "makes the shot" isn't necessarily the subject of the shot. It can be the sort of icing on the cake.)

"An ensemble works together."

No it doesn't, at least not in the way you seem to mean.

"This picture is about several people interested in cooking, and several other people interested in a photographer."

Which is just what many ensembles do. An ensemble is where different people, often performers in a cast, are given equal amounts of time but very different roles and relationships. The cast of the TV show "Friends" is a great example of an ensemble. Quite often, each episode had several different threads going on at once, involving the different characters doing different things, often with two very different threads going on in the same room at the same time. That works nicely in photos as well.

"he left few clues, not even a title. Should every viewer research the work of every photographer before offering a thought"

I generally hate titles that give out information, especially when the point can be made in the photo. The photographer did make his point to me. I see many visual clues as to what he wants. For instance, all the people he included were my biggest clue that he wanted all the people in it. No research necessary. I'm convinced that when we look carefully and use our abilities to empathize, we can often adopt the viewpoint of the photographer through his work without needing titles or statements, if the work is good enough. It's hard for me to look at this photo and not imagine that the scene itself was of great significance to the photographer. Any critique I would make, and I don't have many quibbles, would keep the scene intact. I propose to you that the bigger challenge and the one that we'd learn more from is that if we felt the scene were not working because of a disconnect between the two groups (which I, personally, don't think makes the scene not work), we keep the scene intact and figure out photographic ways to make it all work. We don't immediately run for the scissors. Like I said, to me, that's the easy way out.

"Patiently waiting for the complex to simplify, or angling for a less cluttered perspective is far more difficult, in my opinion, than standing back and capturing the ensemble."

I don't think avoiding clutter is more difficult. I think it's more typical. There's no rule that says to avoid clutter, but most people do it. Creativity is often doing what is not typical.

I don't want to get into this as deeply as it appears others have. I'll wait until later to read all of these critiques -- Looks like a hornets nest. Anyway, I think this is a great photograph. It could use a small change or two as i see it, but no elimination of whole people. In fact, although I tried and tried, I could not find a way to improve it by cropping, unless one was to eliminate a tiny strip from the right side to help lose the dark corner. That could also be done by cloning that dark area away. Initially, I though the object in the upper left corner could be cloned away or darkened, but after further review, I think it adds to the depth of the picture.

The tiny dark frame around the picture causes confusion as to what is in the picture and what is not. It could use a lightly shaded border first, and then the dark one, or none at all. Personally, I see that as this images greatest flaw, and that's not much of one. That frame and the darkened corner do bother me a tad.

Overall a great shot with wonderful light and shadow. That light, almost hazy background set this picture off, nicely.

Willie the Cropper

You make an excellent argument, Fred, and the thoughts behind them are articulated such that I'm persuaded...almost. However, I don't think our further discussion will change our respective positions so, to avoid this becoming, as Willie has observed, a hornet's nest, I'm Palin out.

by Luis Henriques
I know this is very hard to take photo,when the light is from the opposit side..Strong shot according to details and well composed..My opinion is to omit the thing that located at the right side below...Well done Luis...Regards(Bobby).

incredible siluette....smoke in the dark and half light in the model hair makes a very good shape, this makes tell much stories...regards!!

The two subjects in the back to the left are what draws one in, to remove them is to remove what the photo is about, unless one wants to discuss the qualities of film. Superb street capture.

Being someone to who comes from the city I was brought up seeing these streets ... and this photo gives me a wonderful feeling. Excellent composition and light, amazing details too. Congratulations Luis.