The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

What is wrong with this shot? [M8]

Chris C

Member
..... What is wrong with this shot?....
Jim - I'll answer your question in the hope that it isn't a fishing exercise for a compliment, and I'll start with a compliment. I love the form of the picture, it is intelligently made with the kind of consideration that good view-camera photographers put into their work. The form of the building is presented square-on and honestly, while the energy of the image rips from left to right with wind and arrows; the exception to that energy direction being the cars battling the wind in an effort to get out of the left hand edge of the image. These elements are formal fun for my imagination as are the separations of other elements of the picture from their surround; the tease of flag, lights, wires, arrow - how the left hand flag and arrow owns their space within the image.

In this instance I'm not too concerned about colour or sharpness or sharpening etc. given that I'm viewing the picture crushed into an alien colour space in a web browser and my imagination desires a beautifully mastered file made into a beautiful print on a wall. It is a finely made image, you should be proud of it. However, what is wrong with it [as you invited] is that the subtle photographic honesty of the image has had the crap beaten out of it with heavy handed darkening of everything except the centre of the image. The vignetting looks silly and obvious, and suggests the centre of the image has overwhelming importance. That interesting 'escaping car' on the left, and the tears in the flag on the right are elements that could be informing the overall content of the picture but are burnt down as if they are of little importance - as are the background flags lost in the darkness of the right hand side.

I really like this picture, but it deserves a sympathetic rendering. For me, the image begs treatment which will allow all the elements of the image to riff with one another; that will be far more interesting than being invited to ignore the unsubtle darkness of your edges and concentrate on the middle. If we play with Mr. Adams notion of the 'capture' being the 'score' and the presentation being the 'performance'; I think you have a tremendous score waiting for a tremendous performance.

Respectfully ....................... Chris
 

rsmphoto

Member
Love it! Right down to the tattered flag. Love the mood. Takes me back to my years in New Mexico. Where the best food was in places like that. I'm hungry now....

As for what's wrong, not much. I actually like the context of the hwy and the old parked cars. Adds to the funky flavor of the shot. A bit less vignetting maybe. Would be nice printed large I bet.
 
Last edited:

HansAlbert

New member


I don't like fast food, nor blatant luminous advertising, nor the drive-thru culture. But I like this photo. It goes nicely with a number of Jim's other shots which I imagine in an album that could be called "My America" or so. I read the vignetting e.g. as an artistic means to express a reflective distance in the photographer's (and the viewer's) mind and to evoke a certain historic aura around the subject matter. The pretended objective reproduction of the objective reality gives place to the depiction of the individual perception of the reality. In the same line the remaining PP may be understood: it intensifies the expression of craving attention which this subject matter induces in the photographer's perception of it as predominant. And what about the absence of people? It directs the viewer's attention to the stand as a building, the luminous advertising, the surroundings, the flags. The story that is alluded to in this photo is not one of individual customers but of the taco stand and other stalls, regarded as a part of the story of the American civilization. That's the reoccurring subject in many of Jim's photos – at least, I like reading them in this way. So, I find nothing wrong with it.
 
W

wblynch

Guest
So, out of the blue he asks... What is wrong with this shot?

This was taken with the M8 and the 28mm Elmarit with post in CS3.
I don't know about anyone else but that is one of my top 10 favorite photos I've seen posted online ~anywhere~ in 2009.

I claim no artistic expertise, I only know what I like.
 
N

nei1

Guest
To be a little clearer,a shot like this depends on interesting details,Jim .I think your processing has hidden those details which exist in the subject,not entirely but enough for them to lose their emphasis.
Youre need to boost the image in photoshop shows a certain insecurity and a need to please others rather than letting the image speak for itself .Praise is nonsense if the image has been fabricated to recieve it.:)
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Hans,

This was my thought when I suggested that Jim post a few from the FW carnival...he does have an ongoing series that is wonderfully captured.
I agree with your assessment of the series, should he make it one.

Bob
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Youre need to boost the image in photoshop shows a certain insecurity and a need to please others rather than letting the image speak for itself .Praise is nonsense if the image has been fabricated to recieve it.:)
I imagine that Jim is either:

1) pleased with the overall interest in his post

or

2)looking for a new hobby.

"Praise is nonsense if the image has been fabricated to receive it."

Your underlying assumption with this comment seems to be that Jim is in need of our accolades and will do whatever it takes to receive them. Knowing Jim but a short time I can assure you that he can stand on his own...you may disagree with his vision but why such a harsh statement.

Every individual perceives reality a bit differently...whether due to a causal factor of rod/cone sensitivity in the retina or the way that we respond to visual or historically incited impulses. The assumption that a photograph should posit only rigid factual visual impulses relegates a lot of art to the level of deritrus.

Your comments might well be perceived in the larger context of an ontological argument which may preclude any potential for personal response or interpretation. We ALL filter those extant perceived realities as we face the day....how we interpret them is an individual matter. Perhaps the best face we can put on this is that we should agree that we can disagree.

Grace, freedom and reconciliation are not cheap but they indeed are free.

Art - even photography need not be constrained within the rigid frameworks that we use to shuffle though the day.

Forgive the rant...its just that I LIKE Tacos.:ROTFL:

Bob
 
To be a little clearer,a shot like this depends on interesting details,Jim .I think your processing has hidden those details which exist in the subject,not entirely but enough for them to lose their emphasis.
Youre need to boost the image in photoshop shows a certain insecurity and a need to please others rather than letting the image speak for itself .Praise is nonsense if the image has been fabricated to recieve it.:)
Well, of course you are right about the details.. this was an exercise for me. I play with my photos all the time. I like trying new things, different things.. sometimes strange things. It keeps me out of the rut that many purist fall into. Once you stop experimenting with photography you are either bored with it or perfect. I am neither.

I don't quite agree with the psycho-babble in the second half of your post. I do not need the approval of others to enjoy my hobby.. nor was I looking for praise. This was my first post in this forum and I expected it to be taken at face value rather than have some think I was just seeking praise.

In a sense the responses to this photo have told me quite a bit about those who responded based on what they believe to be wrong with the photo and how they worded their response. I now know how some here like their photography. I know some are highly opinionated and some have quite open minds.

By the way, I like all types of photography. The blurry OOF, BW, color, landscapes, street, portraits, nature, you name it, I like it. I don't always understand it (Irakly) but I always respect what others do with their photographic vision. It's all good.
 
Hans...



I don't like fast food, nor blatant luminous advertising, nor the drive-thru culture. But I like this photo. It goes nicely with a number of Jim's other shots which I imagine in an album that could be called "My America" or so. I read the vignetting e.g. as an artistic means to express a reflective distance in the photographer's (and the viewer's) mind and to evoke a certain historic aura around the subject matter. The pretended objective reproduction of the objective reality gives place to the depiction of the individual perception of the reality. In the same line the remaining PP may be understood: it intensifies the expression of craving attention which this subject matter induces in the photographer's perception of it as predominant. And what about the absence of people? It directs the viewer's attention to the stand as a building, the luminous advertising, the surroundings, the flags. The story that is alluded to in this photo is not one of individual customers but of the taco stand and other stalls, regarded as a part of the story of the American civilization. That's the reoccurring subject in many of Jim's photos – at least, I like reading them in this way. So, I find nothing wrong with it.
Hans, thank you for taking the time to put your thoughts into words here.. in that way that only you can do.... and your summation is pretty much on target.
 
Chris...

I really like this picture, but it deserves a sympathetic rendering. For me, the image begs treatment which will allow all the elements of the image to riff with one another; that will be far more interesting than being invited to ignore the unsubtle darkness of your edges and concentrate on the middle. If we play with Mr. Adams notion of the 'capture' being the 'score' and the presentation being the 'performance'; I think you have a tremendous score waiting for a tremendous performance.

Respectfully ....................... Chris
Thanks, Chris. I first played with this photo in post and found it to be lacking when treated as just another shot... which, by the way, was as a BW shot. 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. I love playing with color and I guess it's because the world is full of color and that is how most of us view the world. Some of what I do is based on extending what the eye is capable of seeing.. not so much HDR but just a little pop here and tweak there to put it just past what the human eye would normally see.

Thanks for your input.
 

kevinparis

Member
jim

photo has been subject of debate in our household.. from my side..i like the subject matter....not sure quite the right angle/framing... and personally would have processed the sky even more.

think it would make a great series if you shot it every hour over 24 hours or every day or month...

K
 
Seascape...

I think it is an interesting shot, I would probably tighten up the composition with cropping the cars (both left and right) out of the shot. Take some off the foreground if you want to keep the same aspect ratio.

I see a lot of "actioned" images on the internet these days, and while they are obviously popular, I tend to prefer straight images (I suspect they may stand the test of time better IMO).

Your choice on the PP, I would like it better with less actions.
I actually tried to tighten it up a bit but then the building looked very confined.. and to remove the cars by cropping would be to remove some of the flag on the right and I was not comfortable with the resulting crop.

I know what you are referring to when you say "actioned" but understand that I rely on no actions whatsoever. People who rely on actions end up not knowing how the damn things work. Everything I do is a manual process.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.
 
N

nei1

Guest
In a sense the responses to this photo have told me quite a bit about those who responded based on what they believe to be wrong with the photo and how they worded their response. I now know how some here like their photography. I know some are highly opinionated and some have quite open minds.
As I said in my first post it was laughably obvious what was your intent,......normaly I would discuss this more but in this case I think Ive said all I need to...........best to you, Neil.
 
As I said in my first post it was laughably obvious what was your intent,......normaly I would discuss this more but in this case I think Ive said all I need to...........best to you, Neil.
I don't know Neil.. I think you are a little too quick to judge others and jump to unwarranted conclusions.. and I guess I've said all I need to say as well.
 
jim

photo has been subject of debate in our household.. from my side..i like the subject matter....not sure quite the right angle/framing... and personally would have processed the sky even more.

think it would make a great series if you shot it every hour over 24 hours or every day or month...

K
Kevin, about 15 years ago someone did a series of photographs taken on a road that laps the DFW area. It is called Beltline Road. They shot in all kinds of neighborhoods in all kinds of weather.. the good, the bad, the ugly.. it was all there but it was one of the most interesting photo series I have seen about the DFW area.. based on the theme of one road.

You might be right about shooting the stand at different times of day and year.. that could be interesting.
 

charlesphoto

New member
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.
 

carstenw

Active member
the HDR style has a lot of superficial attraction to it. I wonder which of those works will last the test of time though.
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.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Well, of course you are right about the details.. this was an exercise for me. I play with my photos all the time. I like trying new things, different things.. sometimes strange things. It keeps me out of the rut that many purist fall into. Once you stop experimenting with photography you are either bored with it or perfect. I am neither.

I don't quite agree with the psycho-babble in the second half of your post. I do not need the approval of others to enjoy my hobby.. nor was I looking for praise. This was my first post in this forum and I expected it to be taken at face value rather than have some think I was just seeking praise.

In a sense the responses to this photo have told me quite a bit about those who responded based on what they believe to be wrong with the photo and how they worded their response. I now know how some here like their photography. I know some are highly opinionated and some have quite open minds.

By the way, I like all types of photography. The blurry OOF, BW, color, landscapes, street, portraits, nature, you name it, I like it. I don't always understand it (Irakly) but I always respect what others do with their photographic vision. It's all good.
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:
 

jonoslack

Active member
Re: Seascape...

I
I know what you are referring to when you say "actioned" but understand that I rely on no actions whatsoever. People who rely on actions end up not knowing how the damn things work. Everything I do is a manual process.
.
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!)

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:
Mark - I don't quite agree with this, and I think it's partly what Neil is talking about (rather ungracefully). There is a multitude of fine art, from Don McCullin to Francis Bacon and on and on where 'like' is certainly not an operative word.

This picture is certainly a 'like' (for me at least) I'm sure it'd make a grand print; the question is whether it's more than that (or whether it was intended as more indeed).

As for the cars and the vignetting . . . I keep to my point, I think I'd have been tempted to do something with the cars without cropping.
 
Top