iwmac

A couple of steps to the right would have opened some space between the horse and the woman on the bench, and included all of the windmill, and then, instead of being just a very good photo, it would have qualified as wonderful.

Mr. Morgan

 

Re: "Village signs of north Cambridgeshire", I am not the photographer of that publication. But thanks for asking.

Trevor,

 

We stayed in B&Bs and pubs, no hotels, not even cheap ones. Also, I'm Canadian, (and we found that it mattered in Britain).

It is not an aversion, but rather a distraction, a personal failing. If I have a camera loaded with colour film, I become more conscious of colour as an end result, rather than pure content....the interplay of the subject with the environment. But, it would be fair to say that colour is generally irrelevant to my genre of photography.

Unfortunately, television is generally pictures without radio, mores the pity, and so very often photogaphy is colour without any content.

First, let me thank everyone for the very kind comments that have been made about this photo and the others I have posted. There is something quite gratifying about people all round the world seeing and commenting on my work. (Especially when the comments have been so positive.)

 

Now for the 'whys'and 'hows'.... this particular photo was taken from a bridge while cycling in England/Wales. It wasn't a case of 'choosing' a viewpoint, but rather because that was where I happened to be at that moment, (and, to a great extent, that would apply to the majority of my photos). The composition, framing and space are due to the 40mm focal length of the Rollei 35 lens. The negative is printed full-frame, as are all my photos. This is not an affectation, nor a dogma, but stem from spending several years as a TV studio cameraman, where you have to learn to compose for the television format. It is a discipline that I carried over to photography.

 

Regarding this specific photo, yes, it is a bit underexposed, but not by much, not enough to matter in printing. The slight flatness is due to the flatbed scanner (a four year old Mustek) and the fact that this was a fairly early posting and I didnt tweak the tonality enough in PhotoShop. Much more exposure and the highlights would start going and so would the sharpness. I suspect that my shutter and aperture were 1/500 and f16, and stayed that way for the six weeks we were in England, Wales and Ireland on a cycling tour. It was the worst drought in 600 years, and we saw only two short periods of rain lasting 30 minutes each. The Rollei 35 had a meter, but I usually use a Sekonic Studio Incident Light meter. There was also a Nikon F SLR loaded with Kodachrome 64 which my wife was using and which I also used on occasion.

 

My pictures are generally about people and their environment, and their relationship. While content is important, the underlying form of an image is also very significant, and plays a great role in making a photograph work as a whole. Having said that, I don't 'strive' for 'artistic' compositions, but I am aware of the counterpoint of opposites, of the interplay of tones and how they relate to the end result.

 

I like B&W, it is that simple. If I shoot colour, then I am doing just that....shooting colour, not photographs. I have been shooting Tri-X for years, it is reliable, generally available and predictable. At 400 ASA (ISO) it allows me to take pictures around the clock with a fast lens. It has been, in fact, considered a standard. I don't push the film, I develop it normally in D-76, diluted 1-1. I have tried other developers over the years and keep coming back to D-76. There are some new emulsions available now that certainly look good, such as Ilford's XP2 and Kodaks TCN400, and the convenience and ease of C-41 processing for these chromogenic films at every corner lab is very appealing.

 

There are no magic formulas, just have a camera with you at all times and be ready to use it. Something I dont do enough of these days, unfortunately.

This was quite a surprise....didn't think it happened until midnight. I appreciate the very kind comments.

 

The camera is (was) a small viewfinder model with a wonderfully sharp 40mm lens. The Tri-X was not pushed, the kids weren't pasted in, it is not cropped, and the print isn't flat, but the scan is. I went for detail more than dynamics in the final posted photo. The first image I posted had better blacks, but lost a lot of detail in the brickwork. I very quickly replaced it.

 

 

 

 

Julia,

 

I've hardly joined in a conspiracy against you, I just noted that I found the title of this picture very appropriate.

The title of this photo quite succinctly sums up the recent ratings debacle.

MVS said it all, with very perceptive comments. I can only add that the bottom and right edges are unfortunate in the way they are so closely cropped. But it is a very good photo.

The soft, ethereal look of the photo is it's intrinsic appeal. There is a very nice touch with the curve of the chair back almost beckoning to the flowers. The only small thing that bothers me is the bit of green leafy stuff that is touching the right frame edge. It breaks the internal continuity of the image. A few moments with PhotoShop could clear that up. This is really a lovely abstract, the reality and focus of the flowers balances well against the soft, complementary coloured out of focus areas.

The potential of a very good photograph is spoiled here by the cropping off of the pen and the text at the bottom of the frame. I can only assume that you had a scanning problem, as you should not have that happen with your camera. Can you rescan? You really need more more bottom space.

The miss here is yours Vuk! This is the singulary most powerful photo in this portfolio of great images. You have totally missed the concept of the composition. Showing the heads would change this from a strong symbolic image, one showing the poignancy of an eldery war vetean, be-medaled, with compatriots, yet alone in a crowd, to just a mundane snapshot. It is a brilliant photograph just as it is.

Markus,

 

This is a lovely photograph, but it brings up my major quibble with so many compositions. On one level it seems minor, but it is very significant for me. I am troubled by photos that are composed so that one is led out of the frame in the bottom right corner. Generally, we enter a frame from the top left and the bottom right is the exit corner, and if there is nothing blocking that exit point we just slip out of the image. If you flip this photo horizontally it takes on quite a different aspect, and you stay in the frame. The curves continue to bring you back to the start and it is a contained image.

 

This is one of those thoughts that has been simmering for a long while and this is the photo that finally brought it out.

 

Ian

I would like to see this a bit darker to add some mystery to the image. It is rather unfortunate that you cut off the models left arm. If you have any other photos from this session it would be interesting to see them.

Intriguing and rather haughty, almost disdainful, but subtly. I like the image. But, again, a bit too magenta.

Interesting composition, but much too magenta. A very direct and compelling (and somewhat seductive) image because of the eye contact from your subject.

I'm rating this, because it is such a good photo, even though I find the URL pasted across the top of the photo so annoying that I would usually ignore the picture. Whether it is ego or paranoia (when it is a copyright notice) that causes people to add text to their photos I don't know, but it ruins so many good photos on PhotoNet.

I find no problem with the limited DOF as it nicely isolates the lanterns, but I would like to see either the other half of the right hand lantern, or only the three, as the split is quite distracting. Nonetheless, a very fine photo.

A beautiful shot just as it is. Vertical cropping would destroy the context and lose the balance you have achieved. The warm light frame around the central tree is especially effective.

And the 'elves' didn't pay enough attention to note that it was a birch, not an aspen....

Maybe just a final word before the 'elves' do their rather bizarre 'magic' round about midnight. For almost anyone in Canada at this time of year, this is a rather trite and predictable image, but for many others around the world it is undoubtly unique. That will explain some of the comments. The technical dissertation...boring...mainly in that it is only in reference to the specific and personal approach you use. Girl Giang summed things up perfectly.

 

And then there is PhotoShop...cures all sorts of ills. Except what isn't there, but you can reframe.

Not too likely with a 4X5 View Camera.

Interesting, but very busy and distracting as you have done this photo. The original photo as posted is very simple and straight....it is useful as a starting point for further manipulation. The model has lots of potential. You don't have to do 'strange' things with her.

 

Ian