What is wrong with this shot? [M8]

[nei1]

"partly what Neil is talking about (rather ungracefully). ".......Ungraceful?..no,dont think so,..........succinct,direct,honest,...hopefully.
.












if you look at post 45 youll see that I de-annoyed Jims image to possibly near its original state to leave an interesting document.
This didnt take long but it does show a little grace.

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

I like the shot. Maybe a bit less vignetting though I like the punchiness of it. I wish more people realized digital should be treated like slide film. The flags make it. Without those (esp the tatters) it wouldn't have the same impact.

Here's a little joint down in La Paz. M8 with 28 cron.

Thanks.. and I like the shot you posted from La Paz. Little places like that are fun to photograph.

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

Carsten..

In the context of other comments here, I feel that I should clarify what I meant with this. With "superficial attraction", I did not mean that there is no deeper attraction, necessarily, just that the HDR style definitely has superficial attraction. With wondering which works will pass the test of time, I meant I was wondering, not that I thought that they wouldn't. There are no hidden daggers in my statements here, and I have experimented with the HDR style myself, so see how it is done and what I could do with it. Ultimately I don't think it is my style, but having played with it has influenced my style.

Carsten, I took your comments as you intended. I try not to read more into a post than is there. HDR has its merits as well as some irritants. I will often see a "style" of photography that I enjoy and then try to emulate it. I have learned more about post work by trying to emulate others than from any book I have ever read. I fail more often than not but I always learn from the experience.

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

Re: Seascape...

HI Jim
Interesting point . . I don't use actions very often either, but my reason is not because 'I don't know how the damn things work' but because I feel that they are always generalisations, and as such can't really take into account the content (mind you, I do use silver efex pro for my black and white conversions).

There's lots of things I rely on without knowing how the damn thing works . . . car and telephone are things that spring to mind (shame on me!)

Photoshop actions are interesting but one size does not fit all and I have found that I have better control of the finished image if I understand what those actions are doing and then implement the process manually.

What I meant by understanding how they work is that I can then see how to improve the effect (for me) by doing the work manually rather than relying on an automated process. Often actions do not allow enough fine tuning. ActionCentral.com offers hundreds of actions and many use them but don't understand what these automated actions are actually doing to their photo.. and they don't always work as desired without manual intervention of the process.

I need to make clear that I view actions and plugins differently. Many of the plugins, like the NIK suites offer extreme amounts of control where Photoshop actions generally do not.

Whatever tool works for the photographer and the image is totally open in my opinion. Whether one uses an action, a plugin or does it manually.. all that matters is the end result.

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

Neil..

"partly what Neil is talking about (rather ungracefully). ".......Ungraceful?..no,dont think so,..........succinct,direct,honest,...hopefully.

if you look at post 45 youll see that I de-annoyed Jims image to possibly near its original state to leave an interesting document.
This didnt take long but it does show a little grace.

Neil, I understood what you were doing in your repost of the image with the image. You "de-annoyed" the photo by returning it as close as possible to a level you found acceptable. Nothing wrong with that at all. Maybe I should just post a link to the DNG file and let those who wish to do so, play with the image.

My treatement of the image was by no means perfect and it was done after I had completed a BW conversion and found it lacking in my eyes.

I felt my first post in this forum should include a sample of what I do. Maybe it was a bad choice... but understand that I do appreciate all of the input.. such input makes me think and consider alternative treatment.. and that is a good thing.

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

Fotografz...

The notion that so called "purist" equals "being in a rut" and aren't experimental seems an odd statement to me. Artistic exploration can take many forms and paths ... some are more subtile than others. Perhaps you need to be "more open minded" in return"?

I for one didn't take your post as seeking praise. I don't know why you posted, but if it was to pass judgement on the responders, that seem a bit personal, and has little to do with photography.

To use the same logic ... that you think you can discern "quite a bit" about those who responded based on a few superficial words on the internet ... tells me quite a bit about you. Hell, it could depend on whether I had my coffee before or after writing something on the internet :ROTFL:

Like you, I personally accept most photography at face value and respect at least the effort. Unlike you, I don't like all of it. More than less perhaps, but not all. In fact, I probably like too much, and should be more discriminating at my age

However, I decide a long time ago that if I didn't like something to at least learn about it. Critiques like this can be helpful in doing that. "I know what I like" ... often translates into "I like what I know." In some cases that isn't much ... and in others a lot.

In the end it comes down to: "like", "don't like" for whatever reason ... with "don't like" usually being a lightening rod for critiques with-in a critique. :wtf:

The rut I referred to comes from several friends of mine who do the same type of photography and the same type of post work all the time. Some of them are purist... what comes out of the camera is it. No cropping, no post. Composition is made during capture. While their work is good and some excellent, it often could be better (in my opinion) if they did a bit of post work. I always know what to expect from them and maybe the term "rut" was a poor choice of a descriptor. We all know guys who do the same type of photo over and over. I just like seeing variety and try to do a bit of variety in my work. I shoot any and everything in all kinds of light. I personally find the variety to be liberating rather than just doing street, or portraits, or landscapes, or macros. It's that old spice of life saying.

No, I was not seeking praise. I was simply sharing a photo in my first post here and asking what this group found wrong with it. I was not 100% happy with it and wondered what other, more accomplished, photographers might have to say about it. In my conversation with Dave on Saturday when he suggested I post here I mentioned that I would be out of my league.. meaning that most here are better photographers than myself. So why not ask what is wrong with a photo of mine?

It was not my intention to pass judgement on responders. My observation was that some were open-minded to what I had done with the photo and some were not. And yes.. responses are often tempered by lack of coffee, too much coffee or whether one might have had a rough day at the office.

I am not always the best at communication and if it seemed I was fishing for praise or simply wishing to stir the pot, my apologies.. that was not my intention.

The group here has a reputation for being some of the best people to learn from and discuss photography. That is why I took Dave up on his suggestion to post here. As in any forum, what you post is subject to the interpretation of those who read it. Some interpret correctly, some don't. The fact that some thought I might just be seeking praise means that I did a poor job of communication in the original post.

 

[carstenw]

Jim, while there are definitely some quite accomplished photographers here, in reality we span the whole range from weekend newbies to seasoned pros and fine art photographers. From this first photo, I think you'll fit right in.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

If anything I would like to see more drama in the angle it was shot. I'm just not a big fan of straight on shots but that's me. I like strong compositional angles that lead you in and around a image. As far as the processing it is a nice technique. Photographer is about experimenting and freeing your creative side anything else is just mundane. As a instructor and working Pro being totally satisfied with your work should never happen. You always want to push yourself beyond your own expectations. If your not pushing your not creating in my opinion.

 

[jonoslack]

Re: Neil..

I felt my first post in this forum should include a sample of what I do. Maybe it was a bad choice... but understand that I do appreciate all of the input.. such input makes me think and consider alternative treatment.. and that is a good thing.

Well Jim
I think it was a great choice, and typical of you . . . as for people here being 'out of your league' . . . . Rubbish - I think you are one of the very best of the photographers I see regularly posting on dPreview, and, as we both know, there are lots of good people there.

I really hope you decide to stay.

 

[Chris C]

Re: Chris...

... As a BW shot it worked quite well with little or no post work... but unlike so many Leica shooters I know.. I love color......

Jim - I think it's interesting as a B&W also, but the decision to go with the colour seems a right one. Not sure how this will look back in the web browser; but a quick and dirty Tri-tone play with the J-peg.

............. Chris

Yeh I know; bloody liberty taking some of your darkening out - no offence intended.

EDIT - Yep, looks better in Photoshop than in my web browser ..............

 

[LCT]

...What is wrong with this shot?...

I would just say DoF. You chose vignetting to hide it a bit no? I like the pic otherwise.

 

[docmoore]

Re: Neil..

Well Jim
I think it was a great choice, and typical of you . . .

I really hope you decide to stay.

Really,

70 plus posts on your first submission!

I usually get one...:ROTFL:

Bob

 

[kevinparis]

I would just say DoF. You chose vignetting to hide it a bit no? I like the pic otherwise.

dont understand... do you mean more depth of field or less? And can you explain how you would achieve that given the lens and the distance to subject?

K

 

[jonoslack]

Re: Neil..

Really,

70 plus posts on your first submission!

I usually get one...:ROTFL:

Bob

and you're the lucky one!

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

Re: Chris...

Jim - I think it's interesting as a B&W also, but the decision to go with the colour seems a right one. Not sure how this will look back in the web browser; but a quick and dirty Tri-tone play with the J-peg.

............. Chris

Yeh I know; bloody liberty taking some of your darkening out - no offence intended.

Chris, not a problem.. I don't mind at all. I did not dislike the BW version.. I'm just drawn more to color.. .however I think either one would work. That's the great thing about photography.. there are so many ways to look at an image and be creative with them.. both in and out of the camera.

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

I would just say DoF. You chose vignetting to hide it a bit no? I like the pic otherwise.

Actually, no. The DOF was not a consideration.. the vignetting was just for a bit of "style".. or atmosphere. Steve Huff has done a lot of that kinda thing and I like many of the photos he has applied that treatment to.

 

[docmoore]

Re: Neil..

and you're the lucky one!

I believe you are correct Jono!

Bob

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

Guy...

If anything I would like to see more drama in the angle it was shot. I'm just not a big fan of straight on shots but that's me. I like strong compositional angles that lead you in and around a image. As far as the processing it is a nice technique. Photographer is about experimenting and freeing your creative side anything else is just mundane. As a instructor and working Pro being totally satisfied with your work should never happen. You always want to push yourself beyond your own expectations. If your not pushing your not creating in my opinion.

Guy, not sure what you mean by "more drama in the angle".. have you got an example of what you mean?

In 1982 or so I sold all of my darkroom equipment and held on to one camera. A Canon A1. I did not touch it for twenty years. In that 20 year period I did not touch a camera because I was tired of the darkroom, the chemicals, safe lights, paper safes, print dryers, etc... I did not get back into photography until Canon released the D30. I bought one with some of the money I made from selling the A1.

Digital has allowed me to enjoy photography again and allowed me to be more creative than I ever could have imagined in the wet darkroom. I agree that you have to push yourself and test new limits. It's part of the fun.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

More shooting from like a 45 degree angle from the building like shooting from the corner. Just something like this.

 

[kevinparis]

guy

disagree on the angle thing... Think the flat on look adds to the slightly unreal aspect of the picture... as does the colour... without colour we miss the broken 'Open'" sign

personally .. a couple of steps to the right might make things better... emphasise the moving cars a bit more. Maybe stepping back and using a longer lens might flatten the image even more

just thoughts

K