Evanescence

by Crosley John

evanescence crosley street color seeking critique john

Gallery: Color -- Then and Now

Tags: crosley street color seeking critique

Category: Street

Published: Sunday 18th of November 2007 11:37:49 PM


Comments

John Crosley
Jamie Some of was a very good idea and very helpful. It's just that I think you didn't have the 'street' shooter in mind and relied solely on technical analysis, which here was inapplicable, though technically correct. Please stop by and contribute some more; soon enough you'll learn the exigencies of 'street' shooting, and hopefully an appreciation of its limitations, which are many. One often must shoot in a fraction of a second. Your comment about ISO and noise was spot on. ;~) John (Crosley)

John Crosley
Jamie Model, tripod, larger aperture. This is a street shot. This is a passerby of the moment -- no model. There was no second chance, no chance to change lenses, and no way to steady anything at all. All your 'calculations about time versus 'steadiness' are wanting because this is not a posed shot. This is nearly 'shot from the hip'. There are no 'do-overs' for these. I appreciate a comment about the 'noise' -- I didn't post it for two years because of that. But you should read the comments with the photo -- 'street' means 'at the moment', 'without models', 'impromptu' 'with the equipment around your neck at the time'. Making 'art' under those circumstances is very, very hard compared to those who can plan every step, but also very, very rewarding when it all works out. Post-processing is a different matter and is within my control. And for that I accept the criticism as being something I can work on. The other things were beyond my contol after I decided to take the photo at the moment. Thanks for all the effort that went into the critique. John (Crosley)

John Crosley
Adan W. Thanks for noticing the important features of this photo; you nailed it. I took a holiday from posting while I traveled and recovered. Welcome back, also. John (Crosley)

Jamie Kraft
blur good/noise bad composition and lighting are good, i think. it's got a really immense amount of digital noise, though. film grain has it's own aesthetic value, but digital noise just looks like poor equipment to me. i would suggest: 1. lower the iso by at least a factor of two, preferably four; 2. use a wider aperture to get more light; 3. use a longer shutter speed to get more light; 4. ask your model to slow down so the subject blur will be about the same; 5. maybe try a tripod at the slower speed, but move the camera a little to give it the blur you want, or just blur it in photoshop. that isn't a cheat because it does exactly the same thing to the image as moving the camera. This image could be improved a lot by blurring in photoshop, by the way. there isn't any sharp detail, so blurring will reduce the digital noise without changing the underlying image very much. hope that helps. best, jamie

Adan Wong
Like a ghost haunting a dilapidated setting. The blur achieves the "spooky" effect and the position of his body facing you and passing by makes for a fleeting moment. The blue in the composition enhances the feeling of coldness.

Jamie Kraft
ok. i hope some of it was of some help. as i said, i think it's a good idea. best, jamie

Jamie Kraft
sorry if you didn't like my comment. i did read your question, and that's exactly what i was responding to. there isn't anything special about that person - you could easily take the photo again, and even if you don't want to, the noise is much worse because you aren't using your gear to it's full potential. i thought you had a point and shoot. your camera is capable of far more.

John Crosley
Jamie I'm afraid your second comment still is 'off the mark'. This is about a half-second hand-held exposure taken 'impromptu'. This is absolutely the highest and best shot that could have been obtained under the 'sudden' circumstanes. This even was taken with a vibration reduction lens, but your remark that somehow the equipment could have taken a better photo is well off the mark. I have more than substantial experience with this equipment, and a one-half second or one-second hand-held exposure is well beyond the limits of getting acceptable exposures. It's not that I don't 'like' your comment; it's just 'off the mark' and makes assumptions that are wrong, as does your second, supposedly remedial, comment. When a man walks toward you, your camera is around your neck low, and you have an instant to take a photo like this, there is no time to think about a tripod, resetting the aperture, focus, etc., or even re-set the shutter speed. That's absurd and beyond a basic understanding of what shooting 'street' is all about. I'll chalk this up to lack of understanding on your part of what 'street' is all about, especially under the worst of circumstances. Note: this is underground in fading late day winter light at very high ISO -- all irremedial facts under the circumstances. Anything 'different' and the shot would be black or just one big blur. Again, this is the best photo that could have been attained under the circumstances. What I didn't 'like' about your critique was simply that it made wrong assumptions which led you (with correct physics) to an incorrect conclusion, and, worse, that you persist in that belief. I invite you to study 'street' photography and go out and take a few 1/2 second to 1 second exposures in late winter afternoons, underground, with strangers walking in front of you, towards you fast, to get some experience then post your work and come back and we then can 'talk turkey' about the bedevilments that face the 'street shooter'. Until then, trust me. Your point on the ISO and sharpening is right on, but otherwise, the critique is based on easily-understood but fallacious reasoning. I understand that you meant well, and am not angry at all, but think your responses both were built on a poor foundation, and so the structure is weak. But when you have that experience, come on back and let's talk some more. I don't mind critiques, but I do have a problem if people don't understand things that are clearly written. And I am not 'in love' with this photo; it was posted for criticism, but that criticism (to be taken seriously) must have some relationship to reality. Thanks for stopping by. John (Crosley)

Adan Wong
Glad to be back and same to you John.

John Crosley
Evanescence The blurs and shakiness in this photo 'Evanescence' are intentional -- an attempt to capture the 'essence' of this underground, poorly- lighted scene. Your ratings and critiques are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly or very critically, please submit a helpful and constructive comment; please share your superior photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

Next Image >>