maria_s.

Because of the huge size I am unable to see your shot in one piece -- why don't you upload a smaller pic (700 for verticals is big enough) without these horrid manipulations in PS -- they really don't add anything.

Hi, John. thank you for your email again. So, here's why I rated this 4/4: it is correctly exposed and composed photograph of a tatoo and jewelery worn by a young man belonging to a certain subculture (Carney the Dinosaur?). While I like the way you arranged things in the frame, I wouldn't mind to see a tad more space at the bottom -- cutting off that lttle finger is not a big deal but it does bug me since it is clearly a close up of his hand and arm. I also am not impressed by the totally black negative space as it further takes away the context and the context is what I really miss here. And I would increase contrast a tad but that might be my screen.

I have a close up shot of a man sleeping on the subway bench that everyone seems to like ... there's almost nothing else in there but his face and I really am not all that sure why people like it. Which just says that we all have our personal biases and I am not an exception. Of course, that doesn't mean one can play unfair -- it just means you'll be getting different responses from different people and it's up to you how to sort them.

I think this would work really lovely in a series -- I would love to see few different takes on this man so I could get a sense of whom his tatoos and jewelery represent. You may say that not showing his face might be a good thing as it makes one wonder about the missing parts. But I don't know much about people wearing that sort of bracelets and tattoos and, unable to make any connection, I just moved on. And I don't see it strong enough as a form or being capable to succeed on artistic merits only. PS I just noticed you have another shot of this man -- it is in color and I totally missed the connection to this shot. He doesn't look as tough as this photograph suggests - interesting.

but I can't concentrate on its head because its big OOF butt stands in a way, can't help it, sorry. I ain't an expert on a macro-photography but what I said doesn't require a PhD in the field -- you know that, Jerry and you did ask me for an opinion. Best, Maria.

I see your problem -- still, placing your pics in a proper category entails, it should at least, some positive consequences -- people interested in that specific genre tend to rate in that specific forum. You may even get an interesting comment time to time :0)

Good focus, light and composition -- when I was a kid we used to catch these and bring back home in glass jars. We would let them out at night and see which one is a better pilot -- that drove our parents nuts. I am not familiar with your camera -- is this an expensive piece of equipment?

I got it, the focus in on its eye. The rest stands. Regards, M.

That would be my last input into your folders. Please, check this photograph of water/droplets . The author of this shot is a very nice person and an expert in PS. If you were a nicer person, I would have asked him to help you with your problems. It won't hurt to email him anyway.

 

I did not rate your effort, I rated the result of it. While I will score some OOF pics high, macro is not the case (unless it is an intentionally blurred pic with an artsy fartsy purpose) -- you can repeat this shot, in fact I just noticed that your next pic is in focus.

 

If you don't want your pic rated but still want to show it to the public, turn off the rating button in the submitt for critique filter. And David, I don't give a squat about ratings.

Sorry if I didn't leave the comment right away but my routine is to wait for complaints first --I don't have time to leave comments on all images.

 

While I understand how compromised the focus in macro photography is, the two-thirds of this bug's behind pointed towards me is out of focus. That pretty much kills a viewing pleasures for me as it seems to be a very unfortunate angle. To tell you the truth, what bugs me here is an overall very soft focus on the whole fella -- it might be your scan, no you shoot digital and digital shots, when in focus, are usually razor sharp. I like the split diagonal planes, both green/black and the one created by Mr. Katydid's feelers. I hope that helsp to explain my rating. BTW, you have much better bug macros in your folder - why did you pick this one for a critique?

Yousef, because something was shot on the street doesn't mean it is a street photography genre -- I am simply trying to clear that up for you. Check photo.net Street & Documentary forum W/NW threads to get a sense of what majority of photo.netters think is a street photography. And even better, do a Google search on a photographer named Garry Winogrand -- you won't regret it. There are hundreds others -- Weegee, Evans, Erwitt, Richards, Bresson -- in fact, check some of these photographers on the Magnum site.

Is this a composite? I would say you used at least two different images to make this one - am I correct?

Toby, because something was shot on the street doesn't mean it is a street photography genre -- I am simply trying to clear that up for you. Check photo.net Street & Documentary forum W/NW threadsd to get a sense of what majority of photo.netters think is a street photography. And even better, do a Google search on a photographer named Garry Winogrand -- you won't regret it. There are hundreds others -- Weegee, Evans, Erwitt, Richards, Bresson -- in fact, check some of these photographers on the Magnum site.

David, nothing in this shot, absolutely nothing is in focus which for a macro or a close up shot is a big nono -- in short, had you entered a macro photography contest, this shot would end up in the garbage can. Take a look at successful macro/close up shots on this site -- it is critical to get the central element of the macro composition in focus. Misplaced focus, on a foreground or a background, won't do it either -- but that's not the case here -- you simply got nohting in focus. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to insist that this shot deserves 6/6 or 7/7 -- my best suggestion for you is too reshoot it as it does have an interesting Freudian theme. You can complain as much as you want and write as many nasty things about me as you pleased, and rate my pics as low as your heart desires and I am sorry but I'm not sorry and I will not change my mind -- I rated you honestly, that's my policy. I have nothing personal against you and I actually am starting to like your passion. I just hope it is not a passion for 7/7 but for making a good photograph. So please, stop being vengeful and chasing after me like a crying girl -- instead, invest your time in some reading on a macro shooting, practice more and you see that your shots will get better.

 

Check this http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1739944 for an example of a macro shot that has the critical area in focus but if you do research, you'll find hundreds of other photographers who are doing macro on this site. That's assuming you want to learn something, not to win another 7/7. Nobody's after you, this shot is simply not good. Best, Maria.

this ain't street genre, it's a Polo sneakers advertisment

this ain't street genre -- it's a coffee table shot

this ain't street genre

this is hardly a street genre

Robert, c'mon now ... you can't be running dry on ideas?

Street photography is a realistic photography, it is oriented towards visible reality and won't always encourage serenity or comfort in its viewers. To the contrary -- a successful photograph should challenge our complacence . So, don't comfort us Marc, your snap is a succesful caricature and you shouldn't be afraid of admitting it. That lady's enlarged head, monstrous glasses and an elephant-sized lonely shoe are a total & successful confrontation -- you imposed some social awkardness on us, on me at least, I am certain of it. Can I laugh at this old damsel or is it socially unacceptable? If not, I should I feel pity for her old age or should I? Or, perhaps, I should feel compassion because of her vulnerability? It's up to us now, you see (that's assuming your viewers are not totally devoid of such sensibilites).

 

I don't understand Mike Spinak's arguments at all -- this snap is not about connecting with viewers, it is about making them feel uncomfortable -- it is about a poking a bizzarro looking old lady with a ridiculous glasses and attire in front of you nose -- I don't think Marc failed here because we all would have taken a good look at her if she crossed our path. And I don't care much if she is at the flea market in Florida or selling shoes on Fifth Avenue -- Marc's is not a documenatary shot .

But yes, this could have been done better -- the impact would be bigger if it was a frontal shot of her -- you would have to ask her, I suppose; and I suspect she would've agreed to it -- that's where you failed. And you risked nothing after this first quick snap (correct me if you did ask and she refused, I doubt it). That's the hardest part of street shooting. But let me quote from Diane Arbus, somebody whom I admire immensly "It's important to take bad pictures. It's the bad ones that have to do with what you've never done before. They can make you recognize something you hadn't seen in a way that will make you recognize it when you see it again." Diane ArbusGood luck.

what do you think, Jenna?

wow ... are you from San Diego?

i concur -- that's jumpy

yeah, good light -- did you just chanced upon them? and i dunno but I prefer boyz -- got any older dudes tryin' to make as rock stars?

wow great, wow magic, wow, wow, wow ... wow... wowwowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowow. really, what the ell is it? not that i don't like it, as i said before i wow really like it, it's well done like a good t-bone but what is it? for. not that i question the idea or wonder why you left the edges so burnt up but what the eck was wrong with that landscape before that you had to land that ufo there? what the eck was wrong with that beautifully shot infrared landscape before you had to go ballistic on it? cause you ain't photographer, cause your wannabe painter? ... ok i accept fhat, wow ... enuf said.

I love that lense, Fred

good framing, forget the drummer.