lightcraftsman

Very nice shot, Steve. The only thing that bothers me is the bottom right corner is empty. Maybe moving a bit to the left to get some elements leading into the frame from the bottom right would have improved the composition. Still, this is a very compelling image.

I agree with Alain, a bit more contrast would enhance the photo. Otherwise I really like it. This would make an excellent metallic print. Good job.

 

This is a beautiful photo. Brad. You should crop the top 1/3, as it is nothing more than dead space, but the light on the snow is incredible. Excellent job.

This is beautiful. I would have done it differently, but who cares? You have captured a beautiful scene. The light is soft, the compostion is excellent, and the exposure is accurate. Well done.

1/500th is way too fast a shutter speed for this type of photography. Except for the look of concentration on the boy's face you could have gotten the same photo if he had been sitting there posing. You night even have gotten the expression with a bit of coaching.

 

Try it again at 1/200th second, panning to follow the action.

there was a post a while back from someone "in the biz" that said a good concert pic needs the singer to have eye contact. is this true? and that the musicians need to be interacting with each other, is this a hard and fast rule??

There are no hard and fast rules, but after shooting several thousand rolls of concert photos over 15 years, I have found that interaction among the performers makes for more interesting photos than the one here. It is also quite easy to get photos of singers with their eyes closed and their lips pressed against a microphone. Open eyes and an interesting facial expression work better than closed eyes and lips pressed against the microphone.

Others, including Alen, are free to disagree. But when it comes down to it, whose photos are going on posters? I haven't had one promoter or musician choose a shut-eyed microphone-kissing photo of mine, and I've taken my share.

Alen,

 

I looked at the other images in your portfolio after commenting on this one, and you have some fine shots there. If I were producing a music event and you asked for a photos pass I grant you one based on the strenghth of the portfolio you've posted here. This photo, however, would not go in any of my promotional mailings.

 

The problem with it, from an artistic standpoint, is that the musicians seem disconnected from each other. The best time to take photos of stage acts is when the musicians are interacting, jamming. This is just too static.

 

The comment equating this with sports photography is pure nonsense, as is Tom Manegatos comment that sports photography is easier than shooting live stage acts. I've done a ton of both, and they're both difficult to do well. You have a good eye. Keep developing it.

Having shot thousands of rolls of concert photos as a staff photographer at the Kerrville Folk Festival, I feel compelled to dispel the notions that this is a good photograph.

 

No. 1) Technical problems. Take a close look at the large version if this image. The grain shows obvious reticulation, which is a result of improper processing, usually from not keeping the chemistry at proper temperatures. The processing probably caused the almost total absence of gray tones in this photo.

 

No. 2) Artistic problems. Not one of the three musicians is doing anyting interesting. The singer has her eyes closed, she's facing away from the camera, and she's has her lips pressed against the microphone. The other two musicians are similarly boring.

 

Now for the good part - this is excellent lighting, lending the photo a moody feeling. Just looking at it makes me remember nights sitting in a smoky club with a waitress bringing single malt whisky to my table. The composition is very good considering that the photographer had no control over how the stage was laid out.

 

That said, this one would have gone in my trash can.

The water is a bit blown out, but an ND filter would not help in this case. You'd lose the detail in the rocks with such a filter. I'd try a luminosity layer in PhotoShop to bring out more detail in the water.

 

Overall, an excellent photo, and I hope the elves choose it for POW.

Vuk, I will apologize for misidentifying your background. However, you have repeatedly used this forum to espouse your political views, and cried "censorship" several times when you were admonished for doing so. As mentioned, I'm sick of seeing you use a photography forum to denigrate a country that fights to preserve the freedoms you have enjoyed for two decades. I will not apologize for calling out that hypocrisy.

 

Your polictical agenda is out of place here.

No, I do not owe Vuk an apology. He has spouted his anti-American ideology here every chance he gets. BTW, he's not Canadian. He's a Bosnian refugee who fled his country to enjoy the relative peace and freedom our families fought and died to preserve. I don't fault him for fleeing the horrors in his homeland, but I do find his constant political rants repulsive and hypocritical.

Sorry about that little slip. It was late, I'd had a few drinks and just finished reading about a young girl in Afghanistan who'd had her legs blown off.

Was that the little girl who had her legs blown off when Taliban forces chased her and her family into a mine field left behind by Russian forces?

Your political agenda has worn thin around here Vuk. No amount of apologies will negate your narrow-minded world view. I'm glad you're enjoying the freedoms that Americans fought and died to preserve, but am beyond sick of hearing your anti-American prejudices.

BTW, nice shot Daniel. It isn't my favorite in your folder (I love the volloyball photo) but this shot is well desrving of POW honors. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it is still a damn fine sports photo.

While the clouds and building are beautiful, the distortion ruins this photograph. The building looks like it is falling over backward, and the structure on the left edge of the photo is falling toward the center.

 

This is an excellent example of why 35mm camneras are poor choices for architectural photography. View camera movement could have transformed this into a good photograph.

There is absolutely nothing original about this photo. But the dancer, the composition, and the light are all excellent. This is a lovely photograph.

 

And Peter, your political comments are out of place on this forum.

Are you people critiquing the photo or the caption the elves gave it?

 

I'd love to have a 24x30 of this hanging in my living room, preferably printed on warm tone paper and toned with 1:5 selenium. Warm tone paper and strong selenium toner would bring out the rust on the old equipment and improve this photo tremendously. Not that it needs much improvement. I've seen this one blown up, and it looks a whole lot better on fiber paper than it does as a JPEG.

Scott, your comment on the scale is right up there with Samuel Dilworth's "...obviously fake colours" comment regarding the Cheyenne Tornado POW. You need to get out of the city and away from the light pollution more often. This comet covered a huge area of sky, if the sky was dark enough to see the whole tail.

 

Great shot Daniel.

Who said he did anything in PhotoShop, Steven? If you're going to criticize someone's work at least get your facts straight. And so what if he toned the image in PhotoShop? That's nothing more than he did in a darkroom anyway.

 

This incessant babbling against PhotoShop is as tiresome as people's insistence that any photo could be enhanced with a split ND filter.

 

This is a damn good photo. The grain lends an impression of heat, which helps the photo. The toning further adds to the mood. Cropping about half the space from the top to the model's head would move her higher in the composition and strengthen the image. Other than that, leave it as it is.

Cut that ski-jump ND out of a gray gel yourself.

Yeah, right. The light and the cloud would disappear long before finishing the custom ND grad for a one-off shot. But you knew that already, right?

Why have the POW discussions degenerated into photo bashing sessions? No one seems to appreciate a photo for its own qualities any more. If the POW isn't a ground-breaking, breathtaking masterpiece it gets unmercifully shredded as a mere "snapshot" or worse.

At least Bruce has some photos on the web to show his competence. This refrain of "use a split ND grad" is tiresome, though. Split ND grads work well in very limited circumstances, and this is not one of them.

This photo does, however, stand on its own as a humorous conterpoint to all the fine art Half Dome photos we've seen over the years. With a more mundane cloud formation it would be just another Half Dome photo, but then Richard would not have taken it, would he?

Well done Richard. You captured a whimsical moment in nature.

Dave, I've spent a lot of time in Yosemite, and have seen Half Dome turn red every evening unless there is cloud cover.

 

Would those suggesting a split ND filter please tell us where to buy one shaped like a ski jump?

 

Nice photo Richard. It made me smile, which is a lot more than I can say for most of the comments pointed at this photo.

Now that we've all had a week to digest this photo I'd like to add a few more comments.

I submitted this photo as POW because the elves had been bugging me for weeks to run one of my photos. They wanted a landscape photo, but I wanted to run a sports photo. Why? Because there is a very serious misunderstanding of sports photography among the population of this board, as evidenced by some of the criticisms levied against this photo.

First off, Kyle Martens' examples are great shots, but simply not possible when taking photos at school track days. I can get shots like that when I have complete control over setting up the shot, but at the events I shoot no one is allowed on the track before 9 a.m., and access is restricted to areas where motorcycles are not likely to run off. Also, notice Kyle uploaded someone else's photos, not one of his own.

As for the tape and wanting to see the rider's face, again, people are missing the point. The tape is required and the rider wore a smoked faceshield. This is not a studio shot. It is not a setup shot for a magazine cover or ad. It is a location sports shot, where photographers are required to take what is available and do the best they can. If you don't think I did the best I could then offer some constructive criticism, but saying the tape is distractive merely shows your ignorance of sports photography.

These shots are so repetitive and frankly, to a non-sports fan, boring. This particular one is far too cropped making it cramped and overwhelmingly 'busy',thus stressful. Well, the cropping was purposeful. I wanted to show the stress in the photo. Again, you just don't get it. Criticizing this photo for being stressful is like criticizing a landscape photo for being peaceful. And if you're not a sports fan, then don't bother.

You can see pretty much the same thing in any motorcycle magazine.Thank you. There is a good reason those photos are in the magazines.

Does anyone else find the strange look on the riders face distracting?No one else can see the rider's face. What are you smoking?

Lacks drama and real bike racing insight.This isn't a race, so this criticism is utterly ridiculous. The headlight, turn signals, and mirrors should be your first clue. This was taken at a dP Safety School day, where the riders receive instruction on improving their technique. I get out on the track with these guys 10-12 times per year, so I have a pretty good insight into what goes on.

...given how your subjects seem to have great difficulty colour-coordinating their helmets to outfit and bike, perhaps a black and white approach can undo that damage. Thanks for the offer, but I have bills to pay and only one rider out of a thousand has expressed any interest in black and white.

The rider looks slow, like he is on a sighting lap or cool down lap - he is very stiff on the bike, his right knee slider looks unused, and he has so much ground clearance the bike looks pedestrian. The rider's 'sit up and beg' riding style does nothing to help the image. This is the most ridiculous criticism of all. If you look at the photo even casually you can see the beveling on the right knee slider. And so what if it was still prisitine? What the hell does that have to do with the photograph? The rider's knee has ground clearance because he is coming out of the corner and picking up the bike for the straightaway. As for the "sit up and beg" comment, that is completely off base. Take another look Philip. The guy is showing perfect form. Your comments show a complete lack of insight into motorcycle riding. If you ride, you need to take one of these schools before you get hurt.

The excessively tight cropping suggests massiveness, which I think is unintended. You're wrong. It was intentional.

I think this is a pretty good shot. Its not a masterpiece, but I have seen far far worse grace the pages of many bike magazines. This photo should not be judged out of context, as it has been quite a bit. My sentiments exactly Joshua. I have to admit I submitted this photo, knowing it wasn't my best, just to stir things up and see what kind of weird comments it would draw.

Wow, you can hold a 400mm image stabaliser steady. What a shit bunch of photos, give up mate! Hmmm... Why should I give up? I'm getting three to four checks daily from people out on the tracks, I don't sit in a cubicle, and I even get free track time from a couple of clubs and schools. What better way to make a living? Oh, by the way, where do you have your photos posted?

stick it up on the client's living room wall and let's get on with something a bit more absorbing than boys' toys. Let's not be sexist here Tony. The girls get out on the tracks too. I know a few who can outrun my sorry old ass and probably yours too.

I like this shot. It's not the best picture I have ever seen. It's probably not the best motorcycle shot I've ever seen. But, its a good shot and if I was a bike fan, I'd probably be willing to part with some cash to hang it on my wall. Thanks Bruce. That is exactly the point of this photograph and of what I'm doing with my motorsports photography.

Samuel Dilworth has taken me to task for not pushing myself harder to create art while I'm shooting these schools and club track days. He has a valid point from an artistic perspective, but in the meantime I have bills to pay. On the day I shot this photo there were 75 riders split into three groups. I need five good, unique (as in not all from the same spot) photos of each rider to give my customers a selection, and generate more than one sale from some of them. This works out to 375 of those photos you'd see in any motorcycle magazine, per day. I need to get the money shots before messing around with any of the arty stuff. I have no desire to be a starving artist, something Kyle Martens obviously cannot understand.

So why this photo as POW? For the reasons mentioned in the paragraph above. Photo.net is in dire danger of turning into a stuffy, snobbish board where anything that isn't the quality of Tony Dummett's POW is harshly criticized as mundane, boring, or even "shit." I rate this photo about a 7 out of 10 on my own scale of sports photos. Decent enough to publish, but not one that's going in my portfolio to impress people.

And just for Tony I have posted a shot of a girl flying through Turn 5 at Thunderhill.

Samuel, here's a TT600 for you, shot yesterday at Thunderhill Raceway.

This photo is cropped to fit an 8x10 format, other than that it is presented as shot. The lack of highlight and shadow detail are a result of JPEG compression.

 

I was using my D-30 with the 100-400 lens on a monopod, and panning as the bikes went by about 200 feet away. As for showing motion, take a closer look at the tires. Those aren't slicks. And if you look closely, you'll see the track below the bike isn't sharp. Could I have used a slower shutter speed to get more blur and show more motion? Of course. But I'm out there on the track to make a living, not to create art.

 

This thread seems to be a perfect example of why photo.net has earned a reputation as an elitist forum. Post a perfectly good photograph as POW, and the majority of the people trash it because it isn't high art.

 

Don't get me wrong. I know people mean well, and I also know this is a damn good photograph. When you cut through all the crap the only thing that matters is what my customers think, and they are thrilled to have magazine quality enlargements to hang on their walls.

Samuel,

 

As a professional writer and editor I must insist that you are wrong on your use of the word "attain." The correct word is "aspire" in the context in which you used "attain." And don't give me any crap about dictionaries. Dictionaries merely report how people use and abuse the language, they are not arbitors of correct usage. Style guides fulfill that role. Maybe you should buy one and read it.

"...I don't think artistic value can be determined by popularity..."

 

Very true. We could (and have) cited examples of popular artists with little talent compared with unknowns with vast talent. Madonna vs Kate Wolf anyone?

 

Still, I like this photo, and sincerely wish I'd been there with my Hasselblad. I would have tried to find a bit higher angle to separate the buildings' roof peaks from the bottom of the mountain. As someone mentioned above, scouting a location in advance helps tremendously. Showing a bit of water between the buildings and the mountain would have improved the composition.

 

All in all, this discussion should serve as a good learning tool in the archives.

As much as I hate to disagree with Mark C., I have to say that anyone who cannot see the difference between gold and white is fundamentally hopeless when it comes to thinking visually. Or perhaps he needs a new monitor.

 

I too wish this had been taken with better equipment. I'd love to see a 24x30 print if it had. But with such modest equipment I guess the image is not going to hang together past 11x14.

 

Still a great shot, though.