gdw

Ulla, wonderfully done conceptional photograph.

Dave, very interesting image. Manipulations are difficult to critique because they either resonate with the viewer or they don't. I enjoy doing them and occasionally posting one or two. I really enjoy the apparent transparency you have achieved in this one.

Travis, I would rather tell you what I see in your photograph than tell you how to make the photograph different.

I do agree that the photograph is very intense. It makes an interesting statement that the young man is very involved in the sport of skateboarding. The viewer has no way to tell whether or not that statement is accurate but will assume it is. The board being so prominent says that skating is very important to this person; it is a very big part of his life. At least that is the concept that your photograph suggests. It could even be said, considering the prominence of the board that possibly this person hides behind his board. That skating is important enough that he is willing to subjugate himself to the board or to his skating skills. We often define ourselves by our hobbies or sometimes our vocations. 

As far as a ‘portrait’ it really depends upon what you want to say. A portrait is more than the documentation of a person’s likeness. You, as you have presented your photograph, put a very large emphasis on the person’s sport rather then on the features of the person.  However the point that including the eye in particular would have ‘improved’ the image and still retained your concept—making an assumption that it is a concept. Eyes are important because that is generally the first feature on a face that the viewer looks at. Showing the entire eye would have better defined the face. It would have given the image a much more comfortable feel that would have more easily read as a portrait as opposed to say a skateboard advertisement.

Take a look at the elements you included on the board—the wheel, the mechanism attaching the wheel to the board, the logo or initials of possibly the maker's initials or logo along with a date. You have given the viewer considerable information about the board. Was that intentional? This puts a lot of emphasis on the board because there is a lot for the viewer to see that concerns the board. Should you have put some of that emphasis on the face? That is a question only you can answer because only you knows what you wanted this photograph to convey about the person and the board.

I am not as excited about the over all quality of the black and white. As Gerry mentions, the blown out white wheel is distracting. Personally I don’t mind it being there but it needs texture, it needs to be darker to give the part of the face shown more visual draw.

So, Travis, the question is. Was the intent of your photograph to show what the young man looked like or was it to show the importance the skateboard played in his life? Or even to showoff the board with some added human interest? All are viable concepts for creating a photograph.

Ed, it is difficult to know where to begin. You have to question what is the young lady hoping to free herself from—it surely isn’t the people surrounding her because it is obvious that they are each and everyone disconnected from and free of each other—maybe each into their own self imposed prison. Maybe she hopes the words from the book will free her from hers. Way back in the shadows there appears that possibly two people are engaging each other but that cannot be confirmed.

The only two people not buried in words, the two men in front, with their backs turned to the attractive lady sitting between them. Each is looking as lost and as disconnected as the rest. Maybe the one on the left who looks so beaten down, so resigned to the fate he has been dealt is hoping to find something to connect with beyond the frame of the image—but even that hope is not bringing him any more joy than the drink he has finished. The one on the right appears possibly engaged in conversation. He is looking questioningly across the table—still his posture is slumped as though resigned to the unfulfilling negativity of the moment—his arms are crossed revealing that he is as disconnected from the possible conversation as is everyone else within the frame. He looks almost as if he is being given a brow beating.

Ed, this is an exceptional image of urban disconnect. It is always there. It seems that all we have to do is have the gumption to point the camera and press the shutter but we don’t because most of the time we are as disconnected as the people within this image—in the same self imposed prison. You have done very well; it is seldom captured as well as you have here.

As for your question, my first thought was not to crop either of the men and I stick with that. Each is too strong an element in the story of the photograph to sacrifice. I do think the photograph would be stronger without the color and possibly on a more narrow horizontal format that would move the story across the image more authoritatively.

Stephanie, that is a great story that enhances your image. Surprising it is not far from what I would have said about your photograph. The one thing you mention that I missed was the man’s appearance of floating. What I find very interesting is the lines and especially the very strong line from the ‘stake’ at the bottom left, through the cigarette pack, pile of clothing and seeming to almost extend from the man’s leg. The 'feel' of your photograph is enhanced by the pole that 'splits' the man. Yes, the timing of the moment might have been as much luck as plan. One of my favorite writers on photography, David duChemin, says that we get credit for our visual creations even when we personally feel they are mostly dumb luck—it is to your credit one, that you did not let the fact you were traveling on a bus, probably shooting through glass, stop you from creating images and two that you recognized the interest of the image even though it breaks many of the conventional wisdoms. It is a very interesting image that carries the emotion of being in public space where much is happening that is only partially seen peripherally and very impersonally. I believe that I would have enjoyed the story your photograph tells even had the exposure been spot on but I do believe it is more interesting with it’s feeling of being so peripheral so detached. I appreciate you sharing it.

Jukka, I seldom comment on photographs that do not have a statement of intent or that asks a specific question. However, I do find this photograph particularly interesting so I would like to know more about the photograph and what if anything it is that you wish the photograph to convey about this father and son.

Briefly here is what I find interesting: the positioning of the two figures, both being so close to the frame of the image; the distance between the two; the statement the photograph makes about the interests, or their diversions of the moment, of the two individuals, the father with the camera, the son with the drums; the difference in the sharpness between the two; the fact that neither is directly relating to the other, each seems to be in his own world.

Since photographs create relationships between the various elements included this photograph could be experienced in different ways. I would find it interesting to know more about your thinking about the photograph. Do you personally see it as simply a snapshot of possibly a friend or relative and his son, a method of preserving a memory of an event? Or do you see it as making a statement about the two individuals and their relationships? It is a very interesting, very intriguing photograph.

Stephanie, I seldom comment on photographs that do not have a statement of intent or that the photographer asks a specific question. However, I do find this photograph particularly interesting, one that I feel asks more questions than it answers. That is always intriguing. So before I do a comment, I would like to first ask a question.

It is obvious from looking at your portfolio that you have a very good understanding of exposure as well as the technical skills required to obtain ‘correct’ exposure. Knowing that, I fully expect that you understand that this photograph has very washed out details so I must assume that is done with conscious intent, purposefully. In other words it is not a mistake or lack of technical abilities. Which leads to my question. But before I ask the question, I want to be clear that I am not seeing the washed out details as a negative. The concept of ‘correct exposure’ is an oxymoron. Correct exposure is the exposure that conveys the photographer’s vision. Therefore, having said that, I am more inclined to believe it is a positive, that you feel the use of this technique best represents  your vision for this photograph.  In order to understand whether or not, in my opinion, it makes for a successful photograph it is important to understand what you are seeing or expecting to accomplish with the use of this technique.

Can you share your intent, the reason that you decided to present the photograph with washed out details as you have? What is it that you want this technique to convey to the viewer? Okay, that's two questions. LOL

Can someone explain why the tree is 'too central'?

Alf, I believe you read me correctly. The conventional wisdoms: the rule of thirds, placement of the center of interest, placement of the horizon, looking or moving out of rather than into the image, etc. These wisdoms are an aid to beginning photographers but when they hang around they become impediments to our vision. They rely on logic and art is not logical. And yes they are extremely difficult to lay aside. I would love to see them banished but they won’t be.

Had you listened to the adages about lead in lines, or oh my gosh, the one about not having a fence across the foreground, you might not have taken the photograph or might not have processed it. A great loss either way. There is no such thing as good photographic technique, nor as bad photographic technique. There is only technique that is applied appropriately or in appropriately. It is the fence in this photograph that, IMO, makes the photograph; that encourages the imagination to take wing. Well, that and the fact that what is actually a lake appears to be a meadow or pasture—an illusion that is given creditability, again, by the fence. The fence totally rewrites this photograph. It makes what would be simply be an interesting curiosity, the early morning fog, into a fantasy for the imagination.

Many times when photographing, the subconscious tells us something is right long before we bring it to consciousness. From your comments I feel that is what happened here. You liked the image but you had not formalized that consciously. Sometimes it is there to be discovered later. Too often at the time of conception we are much too drawn to the verisimilitude—the appearance of reality in photography—capturing the scene realistically. Actually all photographs are illusions. Or as Susan Sontag said, surrealistic. Later, sometimes much later we become aware of the serendipity of the photograph—what the subconscious was telling us was right all along. This photograph is every bit as serendipitous as was the Thief and His Furry Companion or the deer tiptoeing across the path. You are remarkably adept at finding serendipity or as I called it earlier, incongruity with your photography. I am very, very envious of that talent. Then again, 2am, I just don't know.... Kidding, you are to be respected and lauded for that dedication to your art. It shows in what you post and in the following that you have on this site.

Here is the darker version. If you do not like this that is not a problem. As I always say, this is simply opinion. LOL

Christal, if I may venture some opinions, not carved in stone. I am aware I like my photographs darker than most people and I have little regard for 'true' color. Light, dark and color are tools that I use to emphasize what I want the viewer to see. I use darkness to deemphasize what is not important. This may be in no way what you would wish to do with your photograph but it might be interesting to compare.

I have downloaded and played with your photograph. I like to do that if I am going to make suggestions. I want to see if what I am thinking seems to work. I removed both the trees on the left. I am sorry but that dead tree in particular really fights the movement in your photograph. Removing both helps it even more. Then I darkened the photograph by using Nik Color Efex Pro. You can do similar in PS. I used the Polerazition tool to darken the sky and take some of the glare off the water. It actually brought some wisps of clouds. Then I used the Graduated Neutral Density to darken the foreground even more. What I ended up with is a silver ribbon of water flowing through your image. With your permission I would be glad to post for a comparison if you would like.

Crystal, you will be amazed at how much easier the eye moves into the photograph without the dead tree.

It is not difficult to clone out. Use a semi-hard brush, I used 50%, that is only slightly larger than the width of the trunk. Be sure to move your pickup point frequently. Pickup and dot, pickup and dot rather than drag. If you do that you will not get repeating patterns. Be very careful when crossing the shore lines, especially the closer shore since the tree overlaps a thicker shape right at the shore line. I would also clone back the green tree next to it so that it separates from the shore line by a half inch or so, enough that there is a clear division between the top of the tree and the waterline. Removing those two is only slightly more difficult than removing the leaves in the upper left corner.

The trees are a barrier. They do not stop the eye movement into the image, to the primary interest, the river, but they do cause the eye to pause and mentally short out the shoreline. Sometimes we have a limited point of view. I do not know this situation but a point of view from higher or from farther to the left assuming there were no other objects that would create a barrier would have been better. As I say, sometimes we don't have options. In those cases we have to give our photographs in post processing what nature wouldn't.

I am sure you know that I cannot wait to take on that statement, “It’s all wrong…”

I would love to see an attitudinal change in thinking about photography. But I won’t. I wish that photographs could be approached for what they say as they are rather than trying to fit them into some supposed niche. I used to call them conventional wisdoms but I have decided they really are more like conventional impediments. I say that especially about this photograph because there is absolutely noting wrong with it as it is.

Okay, maybe it doesn’t tell the story you would like to have told—that of course is a problem. But the story that it does tell is interesting. It has what I call the Alf Bailey signature—incongruity.

This is reality as fantasy and sometimes reality is more fanciful than fantasy, as in this case. This is a photograph that at first glance is simply verisimilitude—the appearance of reality. Very quickly the viewer is jarred with the fact that there is something very wrong with that reality—there is a boat in what seems should be a meadow, and it is floating on a cloud. Even on close scrutiny I cannot ascertain that there is water at all. (On reading the comments I see this is a lake but there is no firm visual evidence of that; of course one can assume that for fog there must be water and therefore a lake. That is logic. Visual art is not logic. If you make it logic it loses much of its magic.) The boat is incongruous. The fog is incongruous. Both shake our sense of reality. To me that makes a very interesting visual statement—it also makes a very interesting statement about the photographer and the photographer’s vision. Both of which I would consider successful, complimentary.

Please forgive me if I am wrong but it seems that probably the first photographs of yours that I commented on was a lake, mountains in the background and a row of rocks just beyond the shoreline. I could be wrong about that. Anyway in that photograph I talked about the barrier created by the rocks disturbed the viewer’s entrance into the photograph. However, in the rocks there were openings so the barrier became a comma; it slowed down the eye movement into the image rather than stopped it. In this photograph the barrier, the fence, goes all the way across the image. There is no opening for the viewer to easily pass through. However, the photographs are very, very different. In the scenic the lines flowed toward the distant mountains so it was evident that what was beyond the rocks was important for the viewer to take in. The row of rocks was not a detriment but the photograph would have been easier to enter visually were they arranged differently. Here the fence totally separates the foreground, the viewer, from the scene. But here all the lines flow horizontally, not deep into the image. Horizontal lines are calm, peaceful. To me it is like saying, this side is reality, that side is unreal, dreamlike—a pleasant, calm, but definitely unrealistic dream of a boat floating on a cloud in a meadow. There is nothing in the dream that is disturbing, not even exciting, it just has the potential for lying back to to calmly enjoy. Possibility like a dream when you cross over to wakefulness (the fence) the dream ceases and most likely soon passes from consciousness. The fence is saying, take care; stop, do not disturb this peaceful unreality. Let’s see where it is going to take us; what will be the adventure just beyond the frame. Even the slant of the fence from left to right seems to be pushing the viewer backwards, being even more protective, more emphatic not to cross, not to disturb.

Like so many of your photographs, I think this is one heck of a shot. I am always amazed by your abilities to be present at and to have the presence of mind to record these happenings.

Of course you break one more of the conventional impediments: the boat is moving out of the frame rather into it. Isn’t that the way it is with dreams? The good ones are much too short and much too soon forgotten. Are you absolutely certain this is not a mirage?

William, as always I preface with, this is opinion. It is not carved in stone, only what I see, feel and think about when I examine your photograph.

As Bill mentions, the converging lines, the diminishing perspective gives your image considerable depth.

Being from Texas the mass of bikes is intriguing. In spite of the tax dollars wasted on bike lanes here you will always see more bikes on carracks than actually on the road. In your image, I am assuming the riders have taken the train into the city to work and can only imagine the clamor when the homebound trains arrive. Must be something to witness. Great exercise for evacuating the city should it ever be needed.

The building is also interesting with the ironwork decoration that ties it to the style of architecture popular at the beginning of railroads. An interesting touch.

However, I do have a question. In the hierarchy of visual weight the human form trumps almost everything else. So I am not sure how I feel about the three people. Had they been walking or looking in the direction of the flow of lines they would have only strengthened the flow. They are not. They are creating a movement that is in opposition that creates a tension or conflict. Were they not there or if their movement were in the opposite direction the image would be stable, quiet, a peaceful respite between the mornings and late afternoons. So, how does that tension affect the image? Does it say that even when the station is less active there is still an underlying air of activity an underlying tenseness that everything is about to or could spring into action at any moment? The people are placed at the very edge of the image, which implies that even they will soon be gone and the station may at last rest awaiting the onslaught of workers. But for this brief period they give a life to the quietness.

In all it is an interesting photograph. After some study, what I originally saw as a negative and was about to take you on about, the people moving the wrong direction, out of rather than into the image, and crammed against the edge creating tension, has become a positive. I think they wake the image up.

Alexis, I took a look at your portfolio. As I suspected from this photograph, you have a good understanding of exposure. Some people with cameras will only learn to be craftspeople. You understand that exposure is one of the controls the photographer has available to add mood and context to the photograph.

If I may paraphrase something that I often include in my comments. It is a quote from David duChemin that I believe is very important to understand if you wish to be more than a picturetaker. David says that we have a great deal of latitude in getting exposure ‘correct’ but we have very limited latitude in exposing to portray our vision. Needless to say, David is very outspoken that vision is what photography is about. You obviously already understand that.

As I say in my bio, I firmly believe that there is no such thing as correct or incorrect photographic technique. There is only technique applied appropriately or inappropriately. Technique in this photograph is applied appropriately.

Paul, what do you want the photograph to convey? How did you feel, how did you understand what was in front of your camera at the moment you decided to take a photograph? What can you do to enhance that feeling in your photograph?

You have two alternatives: you can print and present following the arbitrary “rules,” no blown whites, no plugged blacks, or you can print and present to display your personal experience.

What you have photographed seems a very impressive occurrence, something that would be very effecting to anyone that witnessed it. If you were awestruck, as it seems one would be, was your reaction deep and foreboding in its power, were you overwhelmed with its awesomeness, or was it light and uplifting in its majesty? What was it in front of you that was the most amazing to you? Whatever that was, that is what you want to put the emphasis on in your photograph if you wish to convey that to the viewer.

There is considerable ambiguity in your photograph. At first it seemed a turbulent ocean during a storm. There is great movement in the upper part of the image, turbulence, chaos. Then in the lower part there is calmness. There is considerable metaphor that can be read into the image. The contrast of turbulence and calmness, darkness and lightness and then that is heavily punctuated by the white cloud that could be read as representative of something spiritual or at least bordering on spiritual.

On closer look the squareness of the light area on the left combined with the calm in what appears to be water in the foreground suggest more a rushing waterfalls than an ocean.

I really don’t want to tell you how to present your photograph but I do have to ask if darkening the near foreground would not unite the upper and lower portions of your image better regardless whether you go with the lighter or darker version.

Have to smile. I just read your reply to Stephen mentioning that this is a lake. Wow. I don't think we lakes like that in Texas. Yelp, ambiguity.

Chris, if I may weigh in. David duChemin makes a statement in one of his books, I believe it is Within the Frame. He says (paraphrased) that we have a great deal of latitude in getting exposure correct but we have very limited latitude in getting our ‘vision’ captured. Vision, IMO, always trumps conventional photographic wisdom. Personally, I feel, and I believe this is the case in your photograph, black is the most important color in a photograph—a rich black. It is where we can put what we do not want the viewer to see or to concentrate on. It is what we use to be sure that what we want to convey to the viewer is the most attracting part of the image. You have used black here to do both. I would much rather see an image with plugged blacks than to see an image that is less than what the photographer saw and felt at the moment of conception.

The blackness gives a wonderful sense of awe and power to this photograph.

Sudhinra, you have produced an interesting image that is more than technically acceptable. Chaplin has numerous fans that love the character that he created of the Tramp and in the case of your photograph a fan that desires publicly to emulate Chaplin’s character.

I do have some thoughts (read that as opinions) on your photograph that I will share. Much of photography is ‘moment,’ the choice of when to press the shutter button. You suggest that you may have other photographs of the actor so possibly you have one that does not share this particular problem. The people in the distant background are well separated from your main subject matter, an excellent use of limited depth of focus. They do not detract from the image but do add a sense of placing the actor within his environment, his area of entertaining. The problem is the lady that is directly behind the actor. A slight delay in ‘moment’ would have allowed her to possibly remove herself from the image. Or possibly a slightly different point of view would have solved the problem. Of course, choosing a different POV might also have been impossible or even created new problems. Basically, whatever you could have done to eliminate the woman would have strengthened the photograph. Elements that do not ‘add’ to the story of the image detract from the image.

The second is something that you might possibly have had even more control over. Although you have captured well the features of the actor, he seems to be out of character. It is an appearance only photograph whereas it would have been possible to capture more of the feel of the character by simply suggesting to the actor that he adopt some of the classic mannerisms of the Tramp. Sure this would possibly have been cliché but cliché is familiar and therefore memory enriching; tying the actor and the character together more strongly. It is certain that an impersonator, the actor, is very familiar with the classic poses of the Tramp and probably would have been more than happy to assume that character for your photograph. Actually I am surprised that the actor did not take it upon himself to perform for the purpose of your photograph.

I in no way wish to imply that your photograph is bad. It isn’t. It is just that it could have, with very slight changes, something as simple at the tilt of the head and a sheepish or sad look, been more interesting, more memorable. 

Kenny, there is no one definition of a ‘good’ photograph. What you will generally get when you request a Internet critique is some arbitrary conventional wisdom about the rule of thirds, sharpness, correct color. Taking that approach it would probably be mentioned that your image is a little dark and possibly not crisply sharp. I see that as being arbitrary because those that make the comments have no idea of what you, the photographer wishes for the photograph to convey. Some photographers can only see the photograph as the object photographed—those are picture takers. To be a photographer you have to reach beyond that to see the photograph as a new entity, an object of art in its on right. 

A second and in my opinion a more useful approach is to try to draw from what the photographer presents rather than whether or not it conforms to rules. Taking that approach the reader looks more for ambiance, mood, an aesthetic sense created by lines, color, balance, positioning inside the frame, what is included, what is excluded. What does the photographer want us to see, feel, experience from this photograph. Something caused the photographer to take this photograph, that something was important to the photographer. It is the readers job to at least attempt to understand what that was. Taking this approach I perceive that the darkness of your image, the richness of the color speaks to the age, history of the door latch and how many thousand thumbs have pressed it, passed through this door. This approach can be accepting of the lack of crisp sharpness. Having said that, this approach would also be accepting of a crispness to the thumb latch but it doesn’t denigrate the photograph because the thumb latch is not critically sharp. 

Generally the eye will go to certain areas of the image. This is not an absolute rule but generally the eye will go to a larger element over a smaller element, to an area of highest contrast, either tonal contrast or color contrast; to a sharper area over a softer area, a lighter area over a darker area, a human element or animal over an inanimate object. There is a whole hierarchy of these elements so generally as photographers we gradually begin to understand what draws the eye in the photograph and from that we attempt to use this hierarchy to call the reader’s attention to what we consider the most important element in the photograph. In your photograph we see that in mainly the dark/light opposites. The left side of your photograph is darker which says that area of the photograph is not the most important yet it has a weight that nicely balances the more interesting side. The latch is the lightest element which draws the reader’s eye and therefore becomes the element with the primary importance in your photograph. I feel pretty sure that is the effect that you wanted. You also have another opposite going which I did not mention, detail vs. lack of detail. Again the most detail, the most interesting lines in your photograph is the latch, therefore it has more draw than the left side which is devoid of intricate detail. Some photographers have to learn this hierarchy, some seem to know it instinctively. You often hear this mentioned as contrast in critiques. Of course, contrast is important but it goes well beyond simply contrast. 

There is another approach which to an extent is an extension of the second approach. However it is more interested in content, what the photograph conveys. To a degree that grows from the interests of the second approach but goes a little farther in trying to read the photograph. 

As advice based on this one photograph. You have a good eye—that is more important than all the photographic technique your will ever learn. Technique is craftsmanship, a good eye is a necessarily for the artist. Technique can be learned, I am not entirely sure that a good eye can be. Never be fooled into believing that technique is the end all of photography, it is simply the sentence structure of the story of the photograph. 

More advice, with a passion avoid the how to books, how to expose, how to compose, how to print—those are for the technique geeks. Study the writings of David duChemin, Chirs Orwig, Bruce Baunbum, George Barr—they will explain what is important about photography as an artistic expression, an entirely different concept. 

First recommendation is Within the Frame by David duChemin. If you would make that your photographic bible from the beginning you will be moving in the right direction. Sorry to be so long but even at this I have only scratched the surface of photography, it’s not even bleeding yet.

Kenny the final arbiter is always the photographer. Does the photograph convey what you wanted it to convey? Now a lot of people can tell you how to make a ‘different’ photograph, but I seriously doubt that anyone can tell you how to make this photograph better. The lines are beautiful,  composition is well balanced, the darkness conveys age, the colors are rich. In all it is a beautifully elegant photograph. I, of course, am assuming that this is not for a hardware catalogue.  

Cynthia, this is a marvelous photograph. Of the two, I much prefer this one.

One of the things that we are saying when we photograph another person is that we find them interesting or valuable enough to record for posterity or simply for our memory. It is always good to be recognized for our value—that is the gift that you are giving John. It appears that you have been photographing John over a period of time. All of the photographs are done with respect and dignity—an admirable trait in a photographer. It is a wonderfully touching story of a gentleman that has about lived up his life yet still is willing to share his meger existance with a photographer.

The only thing that I see in the photograph of the full face is the two photographs on the wall behind him. They are in this photograph but much less noticeable. It is obvious that John holds a regard for photographs, for what photographs bring to him. I am assuming that Patricia has been out of the picture for some time and this is his way of remembering, honoring a prior time in his life, a time that he still holds important. If anyone can look at this photograph and not have their heart touched they have a problem.

By not having the full face you have added a universality to John, the ability for the viewer to substutite someone like John that they have encountered in life. 

Laurent, always pleased to find a photo that brings to mind a poem. Sara Teasdale's Let It Be Forgotten ends with 

If anyone asks, say it was forgotten

   Long and long ago,

As a flower, as a fire, as a hushed footfall

  In a long-forgotten snow.

Sorry, had to look it up. The poem is Sara Teasdale’s Barter. And the line is “And children’s faces looking up, Holding wonder like a cup.”

Christal, there is more than one answer to your question depending upon intent. 

  First, let me say that your photograph reminds me of a line from a poem, can’t remember which one—“The face of a child looking up, holding wonder like a cup.” I always enjoy it when a photograph strikes a verse of poetry.

  If your intent is simply to capture a good likeness of a child you have succeeded at that. It conforms to every accepted norm on sharpness, rendering of tones, capture of texture. All are well done. 

  If you are asking about composition, balance, use of format then things become more subjective. Since I do not put a lot of stock into conventional wisdoms—especially the one that says the eyes need space to look into—I would probably suggest cropping some off of the top. Most will disagree with that. I personally would crop because to me the child seems to be falling backwards out of the image area. Again, subjective. IMO, a narrower format would contain the image better, meaning the image balances better without the negative space on top. 

  Some photographers would be extremely happy with the technical expertise, with the well done capture that you have achieved. If that is your question this is the end of the critique. 

  If on the other hand you were to ask me what would make this a really interesting people photograph I would say that you should have included Grandpa. Much of the “interest” in photographs is accomplished by contrasts; light and dark, new and old, big and little, young and old. A contrast starts to give a photograph story or to enhance story. Just a thought to think about. People are emotional elements. We relate to people emotionally; I love you, I hate you, you make my heart flutter, you are gross. Use those emotions in your photographs of people. You have a choice. You can make your photographs of people look like them or you can make them say something about them. The rules on how to do that are very convoluted and you won’t find them studying technique for the sake of technique. You learn them by studying the visual language of photography. You learn them the same way a child learns the spoken language, a little at a time. 

  In looking at your portfolio, I see that you have photographs, fairly nice people photographs, of musicians that you refer to as colleagues. Some of the most respected photographers come from the ranks of musicians—Ansel Adams comes to mind. Think about the type of music that you like to pay. I would bet it is closer to Tchaikovsky than it is to I Dropped My Dolly In The Dirt. So what is the difference, nuisance, drama, emotion—try to find ways to put the language of your music into your photographs and you will make great people pictures.

Tim as promised: There are several ways that this photograph could be approached for a critique and there are probably even more ways than I have found. The most common is technique. As far as composition, point of view there is nothing that, IMO, needs to be changed. It is a very straight forward well done image. It is of course visually weighted to the right because of the position of the house but there is enough detail over all to keep the eye moving around the composition so that it does not seem unbalanced. Were it mine I would pick up both the contrast and the color. If you have looked at my portfolio you are aware that I like photographs to be darker than probably most people do. Generally my first step is to open the histogram and pull the black slider over to “kiss” the edge of the upward slope of the graph. Actually, I generally bring the black just inside the slope. If you are concerned about plugged shadows you probably should just let it “kiss.” I pull the white slider over to “kiss” the end of the downward slope. It is always good to check for blown highlights and plugged shadows after you make these adjustment and then make any corrections you feel necessary. In my photographs I am always concerned about blown highlights but have a good deal of tolerance for plugged shadows. Some people do not. I also like rich color so generally my first step toward that is to push the histogram’s midtones slider slightly toward the dark/black. Most photographs respond well to this histogram treatment and it is easy to adjust the tones to your liking. You can of course achieve similar if not identical results in either levels or curves. I just find working the histogram the easiest.  

Having said that, to me, this photograph is on the flat side. So in addition to the histogram adjustment I would apply just a slight amount to added contrast. Since this is a Fall scene and the highlight of Fall is the autumn colors I would also increase the color even more. For that I do not use saturation because, again IMO, increasing saturation can quickly become garish. I prefer to use Vibrancy which seems to affect the warm colors slightly more than the cool colors. Again, Tim, this is simply the way I see your photograph. It is not carved in stone. If a photographer likes a flatter contrast there is absolutely nothing wrong with that—it is simply a matter of opinion/preference/the individual way of seeing. All I wish to do is to tell you how I see your photograph, not how you should see your photograph. Also in viewing images on the web, it can be to a great extent the differences in our monitors or in the ways our monitors are adjusted. What I am seeing as flat you may be seeing with more contrast and color.

My primary interest in a photograph is not the technique necessarily but what the technique adds or detracts from the statement of the photograph. As I see it this photograph has two statements, one about the autumn, one about the house. The autumn is well covered in the warm Fall colors of the image. The house being partially obscured suggests that this is a very private place, sit away in the hills and trees to assure privacy. It is something that most of us long for at some time or other so it gives a very positive, pleasant comment on the house. It also says that the house is an elegant building and from the number of chimneys most likely a building that has been there for a long time. It obviously suggests that this is a grand country home. The point of view with the building partially obscured suggests that the viewer is somewhat privileged in viewing this private location. In all it is a simple but very upbeat image.

As I said, Tim, this is opinion. I hope it aids you in seeing your photograph from possibly different points of view.