gdw

Stopped in for a burger and noticed the flag flying above my drink.

Shot with a Samsung HZ15W.

Lynn, thank you. I love small Texas towns.

This is in an section of Houston called The Heights. I enjoy

photographing there because it has so much character. The

somewhat stylized bike rack is a very recent addition. I thought it was

interesting that the owner/owners of this bicycle built for two

preferred an older arrangement to secure their property.

Robert and Rashed, thank you both very much. This was part of a 100 Strangers project that I never finished. I need to get back to it.

Nicky, I am starting with an assumption that you are aware of your vision. Assuming such, you are the only person qualified to say whether this “technique” adds or detracts from your vision of what the photograph should express. 

As far as a viewer, everyone will see it differently based on their accumulations of life experiences. Some will see it as inappropriate technique because they are locked into a formularized version of photography. Others will look at the technique and ask what the photographer wants the technique to say about the young lady. Being of the latter I think the technique is interesting. The excitement you captured on her face gives a lot of liberty to the presentation. I think the “harshness” contributes to the vacillation of being a teen ager—there seems on middle road. It is commendable to use a technique that adds to the statement of your photograph and you have done that.

Henri Cartier-Bresson, one of the worlds great photographers is attributed with saying that sharpness is a bourgeois concept. I do not say that sharpness can not contribute to a photograph but I am saying that the quality of a photograph is not dependent upon any and I do mean any technique. It is far less important than content to all but those that cannot see a photograph beyond a technical exercise.

I love visiting small Texas towns. I was in Woodville to attend a

photoshoot the following day at Heritage Village Historic Park just

outside town. I went up a day early so I could spend some time

photographing Woodville as part of a Highway 297 project that I am

slowly beginning. In the town where I grew up there was a saying

that they rolled up the sidewalks at 9 o’clock and I love that feel to

this photograph. Brave souls still move about but they are few and

far between. To me the photograph captures much of what I

experienced as a citizen of a small town many years ago.

Driving around looking for photo ops, my wife and I were in need of

something cold to drink so I stopped in the Clutch City Convenience

Store for a soft drink. This very attractive young lady was working the

counter. I loved the light coming in from the window on the front and

couldn’t resist asking if I could take her photograph. Ms. Vickie kindly

agreed then sent me next door to H-Town Liquors to photograph

Jalice, the clerk there.

I was at a photoshoot around the corner when I saw Michael come

out to close the security blinds on the Calliope Sub Shop. Michael

was a good sized person. I couldn’t resist asking him to pose for a

photograph in his red shirt against the red painted security blinds.

Houston has an organization, Wreaths Across America, that places

wreaths on the graves of in the Houston Veteran’s Cemetery in

December each year. The Patriot Guard, true to their charter, was

there to support the event. An organization I belong to was invited to

document the event. I especially enjoyed shooting the Patriot Guard

as the accompanied the trucks hauling the wreaths to the cemetery.

For almost a year I have been working on a project which I call Table

for One. Generally I use a Nikon D700 but this morning I came

across the charger for a Samsung HZ15w that I have had for a

couple of years but never learned to use. I decided to take it rather

than the Nikon to see if I could figure it out. This was shot f/3.3 @

1/15, ISO 400, post and conversion in Nikon Capture NX2.

Pierre, Thank you for the comment. I agree, I was trying for a haunting mood to the photograph. After all, museums are places for collecting relics from the past. We enjoy revisiting places and objects that brought us pleasure in the past or remind us of the changes we have experienced. Why should not the spirits from the past enjoy roaming a museum at night.

Brian, I am probably the last person you would want to get a first critique from. Over all, technically it is a good capture. You have a strong diagonal line to bring the viewer to the bike. The tilt of the bike with the front wheel pointing outward adds a degree of tension, of uncertainty as to how secure the bike might actually be. The dark door on the right gives a good weight to that side to balance the photograph. The texture of the wall and the cobblestones give a good textural feel. This is mostly a personal preference but I would like to see the image just slightly darker to give it a little more snap—not enough darkness that you lose detail but enough to give more weight overall. My only other comment would be that it is important to not only get all the elements into the photograph that is needed to tell the story it is equally important to eliminate any elements that are not necessary and therefore detract from the story. In that regard I feel that the photograph is stronger if it is cropped inside the dark vertical line on the left. Removing that removes nothing that is necessary to the photograph.

John, it has been a very long time since I critiqued a photograph of yours. I love this—such great humor. It seems that the gentleman is either extremely nearsighted or he has possibly never used a P&S before. It almost appears as if he is trying to find a viewfinder that the camera probably does not have. If he is viewing the LCD he is awfully close. Add that to the aforementioned disparity in size and you just have to smile. Great shot.

Martin, a lovely photograph. I have a prejudice for photographs of the elderly because their faces, their bodies, their body language conveys so much of their life experiences. I have no knowledge of their social status in Bulgaria but from my experience using the clues you have provided I would say they have lived simple lives, close to home, close to the land—not an easy life but one that can be very satisfying. Putting them into shadow removes a good deal of identity which makes them more universal, more representative of their peers than of themselves which gives the photograph a larger appeal a larger statement.

There are some issues I would take, not with the photograph par se but with the title. The stance seems much more two women talking. The lowered head suggests that the conversation is serious, maybe worrisome—at least not jovial. I do not see anything that tells me that they are going off to harvest. True one is holding something in her hand but it is not easily identifiable I would have to make an assumption based on your title that it is a tool for harvest. I think the photograph stands well on its own but the title tells me that you are seeing something or have a knowledge that the viewer is not privy to which is very easy to do.

Jerry, I’m going to share a story for what it is worth—and it might be worth what I’m charging, nothing.

I have been a member of Pnet for ten years, only seven that I was very active. I am coming back from a hiatus of a couple or three years. In that ten years I rated one photograph because I thought it was truly exceptional and rated a 7/7, the highest rating at that time. I was very clear that putting numeric values to either originality or aesthetics is asinine—it’s an either or not a this much. I also do not judge in my camera club for the same reason. I will say this, if someone is rating your photographs low they need to get a life. And I will tell you why I say that.

Before I comment I almost always browse the photographer’s gallery because I want to see if the photograph I am critiquing is consistant with their work or whether it might be a fluke or a lucky accident.

One of the criteria I use to determine the value of a photograph is the impression that it makes—its ability to possibly make a lasting impression. In browsing your gallery I immediately recognized one of your images, one you posted back in 2004 titled Freckles. Anyone that makes a photograph that I remember that long makes darn good photographs regardless of how the blind masses assign them numerical values.

You have gotten some very favorable comments on your gallery about how attractive your children/grandchildren are and on how attractive your photographs are. Neither of those means a lot to me. What is important is that your photographs have content, they have emotion. Regardless of how technically perfect a photograph is, without content, without emotion they are useless for anything other than calendar art.

You are not nearly as “in need” as the person who cannot see your photographs.

I am not an animal rights activist so I’m not entirely anti-zoo but you

do have to feel some empathy when viewing caged animals,

especially primates. I had been shooting some close up face shots of

the chimps and was moving to a new location when I saw this lone

chip sitting at the edge of the precipice. I stopped to shoot a

photograph then moved for a different viewpoint. As I moved the

chimp seemed to follow me almost as though he was aware of the

empathy I felt for his situation. It was a little moving because

regardless where I moved the chimp never seemed to take his eyes

off of me.

I enjoy shooting in museums. I also enjoy religious artifacts as

subject matter. I made two runs through the museum this night the

first to shoot individual items, the second, this one, to do overall

installation shots using very slow shutter speed. There seems

something appropriate about finding apparitions milling about in

museums. I particularly enjoyed the illusion that the figure in black

seems robed as a priest and the second figure seems to be in a

prayer position—both serendipity, not planned. This was ten seconds

at f/22.

Recently joined in a late evening photoshoot at the mandir. I enjoy

playing with color so of the several photos I've uploaded they are

have different colored skies. For the most part I simply intensifed

colors already available to applied warming or cooling to shift the

mood of the image.

You have used color as an emotional component of the photograph rather than attempting to capture true colors--which is what color should be. The overall monochromatic color pulls the photograph together giving a feeling of harmony between the sand, the sea and the birds and their natural relationships. Also you were not "locked in" to the format of your camera; the
longer format contributes well to the horizontal nature of your photograph. By
not leaving a gap on either end it can be assumed the there are many more
Sanderlings on either side. It is a very well executed photograph in all aspects.

Posting a revision is not intutive but I think I figured it out so I will try again.

Here's the critique:

Tom, you have made an excellent start. There are a number of lessons that can be taken from your photograph. The first and most important is simplicity and narrowing what is within the frame of your photographs to only the necessary elements to tell the story that you want to tell. Every element that you include in your photograph that does not add to the story detracts from the story.

I am certain that you wanted a photograph of the two frogs, not all the clutter of the vegetation. Like many things in life, photography is often a compromise and you have to take what you are given—hopefully with the knowledge that you can take measures for improvement later. Actually the photograph of the frogs is very good; it just needs a little help.

I am going to recommend a book, David duChemin’s Within the Frame. In it David says quite correctly that there are three factors that go into a photograph. First the photograph you envision at the time of the exposure. Second the image you capture in your camera. And third the image you create in post processing. In my judgment you did very well on both of the first two considering what you had available at the time. With a little more practice you will be able to move your photography along in the third stage, post processing.

I am going to post a revision to your photograph. Granted this took a good deal of post work and it is not something that I would expect a beginner to do without considerable practice. But I want to show you that you actually have a fairly outstanding photograph concealed in all the background clutter. Basically what I have done is to tone down the bright greens that are overpowering the two frogs. Then I tried to hide much of the clutter in black so that what is left is hopefully what you saw at the time of the exposure, the two frogs with just enough background to give them an environment.

Tom, you have a fairly outstanding photograph hidden in all the background clutter. I did a revision but cannot figure out how to post to the forum so I sent you a pm  so that we can move off list if you are interested.

Olu, the above comments are appropriate to the general standards applied to photography. If you wish to make this a photograph about your son, the comments are appropriate. The only problem I have with that approach is that it plays to sameness—eventually to giving up a personal vision in order to apply acceptable standards to our photographs.

So, if I may approach your photograph from a different perspective. That being that there is no such thing as "correct exposure." How light or how dark you chose to present your photograph is simply a reflection of what you want the photograph to convey to the viewer.

Sure you can lighten the photograph to comply with some arbitrary rule but in the process do you not lose the mystery you wish to convey in this the image? I personally love the darkness, the mystery you have achieved. The question is; is this a photograph about your son or is it a photograph about an ambiance of the expression and of the moment? Anyone can expose a photograph "correctly" but it take a person of some vision to know when you shouldn't.

The softness you mention adds greatly to the photograph. Like exposure, focus/sharpness/blur are all simply elements that are used to construct the statement, the story, the emotion of a photograph. Think of these elements as the sentence structure of the visual language of photography; not as corrects or incorrects. In spite of what you are told, there is no such thing a good photographic technique. There is no such thing a bad photographic technique. There is only technique applied appropriately or inappropriately—and once you understand what each element adds and how it affects the overall image, then appropriateness is the call of the individual photographer.

As adults, out of nostalgia for a time lost, we envision childhood as lightness, joy, unencumbered with the responsibilities of adulthood—we wish to only remember, or in looking back to only see, the good times the pleasant times. That desire carries over into our photographs of children. Yes we will accept the occasional photograph of tears or the face smudged with food—who can deny those times but for the most part we want our photographs of children to be light and care free.

However, there is considerable darkness of the unknown to childhood. How much evil lurked beneath your bed or behind the closet door at night. I commend you for letting your photograph play to that dark mysterious side of childhood. In the end, only you can make the call as to whether or not your vision is expressed better by the dark or the lighter version of your photograph. Were it mine, I wouldn’t change a thing. It is a beautifully deep image that if given the chance will draw you into it just as it is. But to do that you need to see it as a photograph and not as a technical exercise.

Doug, don’t sell the idea short just yet. My first question was what connected these people, why are they grouped together this way but if you start looking at the images individually that seems to become less important.

As photographers, especially if we are photographers that like to photograph people, we are lookers, you might say voyeurs. That is why we take photographs of people to keep them around. In private we can stare at a photograph as long as we wish without repercussion. I do not understand photographers that do not photograph people other than to assume that for them it is just too traumatic. I do not understand photographers that would not love to have faces to study. I look at the individual images and make assumptions, it doesn’t matter if the are right or wrong, about the individual. Maybe I connect individuals. I consider which ones I find attractive, unattractive, maybe which ones I would like to know more about or which ones I would likely avoid. It’s like looking through someone else’s high school annual. I am not sure that we can look at photographs of faces without make assumptions. Who do I suppose was the most popular, voted most likely to succeed, the class clown, the geek squad. As people and especially as photographers it is built into our DNA to look at people. This is a very interesting project. Thanks for sharing.

Which way you display the photograph depends upon how phallic you want it to appear.

It is not your lens, it is you lighting and exposure. No matter how much pro equipment you own or rent it is not going to save this shot until you get lighting and exposure correct.

Sharpness comes from contrast. Eliminate contrast and you eliminate sharpness. White comes from very, very even lighting. Uneven lighting over the area covered by your lens and you are going to get gray like this.

Start be working with one light only, the overhead. Diffuse it to where if possible it is at least twice the size of the area covered by your lens, the more the better. It has got to be at least as big as your area covered and should be bigger. Use double sheets of translucent Plexi or two stretchers with white fabric like rip stop nylon about six inches apart or so to really soften and diffuse the light. If you have more lights put them up there. Having two, three, four or even more in a bank, as long as they are diffused would be great. Your light is extremely uneven which is the cause of the white in the middle of the pearls and the gray around the pearls. You are not going to have white until you get the lighting even over the entire background, not just over the pearls.. You've got white in the middle of the string but because your lighting is gosh awful uneven, the fall off is gray by the time it gets to the pearls.Large diffused lighting and you will nave a nice soft shadow under the pearls to increase apparent sharpness.

Then get your exposure correct. You are getting gray because you are underexposing white. Are you bracketing exposures at all, or are you going with a built in meter reading. Get the camera off Auto or Shutter or Aperture and use Manual settings so you camera meter is not messing up your exposure.

You probably will not need the light under the Plexiglas but if you do move it much, much farther away. It is causing most of your problem. It looks like you are using a round fluorescent rather than a bank of the fluorescent tubes. You also need to diffuse it so there is no hot spots on the bottom also.

Get the lighting even. Don't kill all the shadow from the pearls if you want apparent sharpness. Get the exposure correct. Then you can clean up the extreme edges in post processing.