Can anyone take a good photograph?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news0Ktd.26203$Ou1.1646664@weber.videotron.net...
> Cynicor wrote:
>
> > emotions. http/www.shelsecundaphotography.com/Portfolio/PDogBark.htm
>
> Amusing. But this is a portrait worth study:
> http/www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2452591

That's a jaw-dropper.
-The more you inspect it (on a well-calibrated monitor), the more you notice
the very difficult-but-perfect execution here.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:


>> Amusing. But this is a portrait worth study:
>> http/www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2452591
>
> That's a jaw-dropper. -The more you inspect it (on a well-calibrated
> monitor), the more you notice the very difficult-but-perfect execution here.

Two things (beyond the lady's beauty which can described in many, many ways)
caught my eye with this one 1) her left cheek (right side) is almost, not quite,
the same tone as the background. 2) the light,detail, texture on the fabric of
her blouse.

There _may_ have been some photoshopping. Catchlights refer.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:g4Ltd.420223$a85.232257@fed1read04...
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news0Ktd.26203$Ou1.1646664@weber.videotron.net...
> > Cynicor wrote:
> >
> > > emotions. http/www.shelsecundaphotography.com/Portfolio/PDogBark.htm
> >
> > Amusing. But this is a portrait worth study:
> > http/www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2452591
>
> That's a jaw-dropper.
> -The more you inspect it (on a well-calibrated monitor), the more you
notice
> the very difficult-but-perfect execution here.
>
>
The face is very good but there is something that bothers me about the neck.
Either not enough relief or, partially because of the light, partially
because of her position, it seems to long.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:ysMtd.64453$IZ2.1802663@wagner.videotron.net...
> Mark² wrote:
>
>
> >> Amusing. But this is a portrait worth study:
> >> http/www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2452591
> >
> > That's a jaw-dropper. -The more you inspect it (on a well-calibrated
> > monitor), the more you notice the very difficult-but-perfect execution
here.
>
> Two things (beyond the lady's beauty which can described in many, many
ways)
> caught my eye with this one 1) her left cheek (right side) is almost, not
quite,
> the same tone as the background. 2) the light,detail, texture on the
fabric of
> her blouse.

That's what I noticed as well... First the cheek tones and eyes, and then
the textures.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Bielec wrote:

>>>http/www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2452591

> The face is very good but there is something that bothers me about the neck.
> Either not enough relief or, partially because of the light, partially
> because of her position, it seems to long.

The neck on the right, like her (graceful, smooth, deicate) cheek, blends almost
perfectly with the background. Becasue her chin is down, the left looks very
long (as her hair is up). I take this as an exceptionally intimate gaze.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
newsxJtd.26066$Ou1.1635317@weber.videotron.net...
> Simon Stanmore wrote:
>
> 1> http/cakeru.image.pbase.com/image/15470706.jpg
> 2> http/www.pbase.com/magus/image/15634978.jpg
> 3> http/www.pbase.com/zidar/image/8973787.jpg
> 4> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34326372.jpg
>
> 1st is well done, but ... er, well, not for me.
> 2nd is fantastic in detail and communicates strongly
> 3rd is pj-touching-cliché,
>
> The 3 above are what I would consider, in various categories,
> "photography" where the photographer applied himself to impress us in some
> way and convey a sense of subject.
>
> 4th one is pure barf. It is crudely done, poorly lit, badly
> manipulated in photoshop and generally meaningless and as it seems the
> intent was humor a total failure at that as well.
> Considering that the same photog did work such as:
> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/37095900
> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/37095898 (not that great, but vg)
> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34333800 (guess he was getting
> tired of his little wooden men... see gallery
> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34333790 (better!)
> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/35590999 (wow!)
>
> and other good to very good shots, I'm surprised the one you posted is in
> his collection.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.

Alan - I have to disagree with your comment about the third being cliche.
That shot's a genuinely honest and emotional image to me. It's very well
composed too. There's nothing cliched about that.
As for your views on No.4 I'm agog. I completely disagree with...
"crudely done, poorly lit, badly manipulated in photoshop and generally
meaningless and as it seems the intent was humor a total failure at that as
well"
How do you figure the intent is humour?
Your 'wow!' shot is the kind of image taken a 1000 times a week with
digi-compacts the world over. For some real 'wow' bug macro's check out...
http/www.beautifulbugs.com/allstar.htm . Major wow goes to
http/www.beautifulbugs.com/adifficultchoice.htm
--
Simon
http/www.pbase.com/stanmore

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:mGKtd.26494$Ou1.1662457@weber.videotron.net...
> Simon Stanmore wrote:
>
> > Alan - I have to disagree with your comment about the third being
cliche.
> > That shot's a genuinely honest and emotional image to me. It's very well
> > composed too. There's nothing cliched about that.
> In terms of pj images it is so common that to call it anything
else would
> be dishonest. That doesn't detract from the real pain and suffering of
the
> subject, nor from the pj's capture of the moment... but such photographs
are,
> unfortunately for all concerned, quite common.

What sort of people photos are not common?
Compare this image with the millions of thoughtless, meaningless people
photos we are presented with every single day. This is a keeper, even if
you've seen tears a million times before.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:

> What sort of people photos are not common?
> Compare this image with the millions of thoughtless, meaningless people
> photos we are presented with every single day. This is a keeper, even if
> you've seen tears a million times before.

See my other reply to you.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1102569232.792479.144310@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Alan Browne wrote:
> Simon Stanmore wrote:
>
> 1> http/cakeru.image.pbase.com/image/15470706.jpg
> 2> http/www.pbase.com/magus/image/15634978.jpg
> 3> http/www.pbase.com/zidar/image/8973787.jpg
> 4> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34326372.jpg
>
> 1st is well done, but ... er, well, not for me.
> 2nd is fantastic in detail and communicates strongly
> 3rd is pj-touching-cliché,
>
> The 3 above are what I would consider, in various categories,
"photography"
> where the photographer applied himself to impress us in some way and
convey a
> sense of subject.
>
> 4th one is pure barf. It is crudely done, poorly lit, badly
manipulated in
> photoshop and generally meaningless and as it seems the intent was
humor a total
> failure at that as well.


I barf too at the 4th, though I didn't see it as humor; I saw it as
something relating to addiction. Which reminds me: in the 1980s, when I
was far more dedicated to photography and had a couple of SLRs and
endless kit, I entered a photo competition. I eventually got second
place, which I thought was good, but the first place image was actually
quite similar to no4; a studio setup featuring a skull (plastic of
course) with a lit, smoking cigarette between its teeth! I'm not saying
I hated it because it was first place; I hated it at first sight
without knowing whose or what, as the photos were exhibited before
announcing winners. I guess the judges probably thought "here's a photo
with a strong social message; smoking kills", but to me it was just the
stupidest imaginable thing, actually, it wasn't the
stupidest-imaginable-thing, because that in itself would be an
achievement, rather, it was the most lacking-in-imagination thing! It
actually put me off becoming more serious about photography in a manner
that I would share with others, and when my kit was stolen of replacing
it.

I don't think 3 is a cliche, though I see where Alan is coming from. I
am often dismayed when I see a photojournalism image of some prominent
distress, like a wailing bereaved or whatever, posted on a
photocritique site, followed by a series of comments like "wow,
excellent! great emotion!"; the idiots!
-------------
I didn't see anyone comment like that here.
Did you?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mick Brown wrote:

> example:
>
> http/www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2843075
>
> But to her mother who cried when I handed her the print it means the world,
> Technically perfect? well thats up to a Contest Judge to decide, but for me
> the true judge was the recipient of the photo.
>

That would have been a rich reward for you, to get a response of such emotion to
a print. I looked at that picture for minutes, concious of an actual physical
reaction to the image - an emotion akin to hearing great music . The picture is
not actually perfect, the child's hair is merged into the black background, but
it's a beautiful portrait of beautiful innocent child. Magnifique!

Also, black/white film types take note. The tonal gradation, skin tones, sand
texture, are all stunning. Who can say that digital cameras can't do
black/white after that shot?? As the owner of a 300D, I haven't been jolted by
a D70 shot - till now.

Colin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Bielec wrote:
Hmmm OK, I'll jump in with the obvious

What is a Good Photograph?

It can be good to the photographer and immediate peer group or family
but may be not good to the judges at a competition

Q1 - So how can nthe same photo be both good and not good at or about
the same time?

A1 - the term 'good photograph' must be a relative value.

Q2 - whadya mean 'relative value'?

A2 - I mean that some people think its good some other people think it's
not good so it must be a value attributed by the people in question.
Change the people = change the judgement


Q3 - is there ever an absolutely good photo?

A3 - course there is, and of course there isn't - it is a relative term

Aerticeus

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Aerticulean Effort" <spoofed@spooked.com> wrote in message
news:6mMtd.1084$p93.373@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> Paul Bielec wrote:
> Hmmm OK, I'll jump in with the obvious
>
> What is a Good Photograph?
>
> It can be good to the photographer and immediate peer group or family
> but may be not good to the judges at a competition
>
> Q1 - So how can nthe same photo be both good and not good at or about
> the same time?
>
> A1 - the term 'good photograph' must be a relative value.
>
> Q2 - whadya mean 'relative value'?
>
> A2 - I mean that some people think its good some other people think it's
> not good so it must be a value attributed by the people in question.
> Change the people = change the judgement
>
>
> Q3 - is there ever an absolutely good photo?
>
> A3 - course there is, and of course there isn't - it is a relative term


Which is why we'll never all agree here...and that's as it should be.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Aerticulean Effort" <spoofed@spooked.com> wrote in message
> news:6mMtd.1084$p93.373@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>
>>Paul Bielec wrote:
>>Hmmm OK, I'll jump in with the obvious
>>
>>What is a Good Photograph?
>>
>>It can be good to the photographer and immediate peer group or family
>>but may be not good to the judges at a competition
>>
>>Q1 - So how can nthe same photo be both good and not good at or about
>>the same time?
>>
>>A1 - the term 'good photograph' must be a relative value.
>>
>>Q2 - whadya mean 'relative value'?
>>
>>A2 - I mean that some people think its good some other people think it's
>>not good so it must be a value attributed by the people in question.
>>Change the people = change the judgement
>>
>>
>>Q3 - is there ever an absolutely good photo?
>>
>>A3 - course there is, and of course there isn't - it is a relative term
>
>
>
> Which is why we'll never all agree here...and that's as it should be.
>
>
>
Agreed

It would be a dull world for sure if everyone did agree?

Aerticeus

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
newsxMtd.64459$IZ2.1805641@wagner.videotron.net...
> Paul Bielec wrote:
>
>>>>http/www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2452591
>
>> The face is very good but there is something that bothers me about the
>> neck.
>> Either not enough relief or, partially because of the light, partially
>> because of her position, it seems to long.
>
> The neck on the right, like her (graceful, smooth, deicate) cheek, blends
> almost perfectly with the background. Becasue her chin is down, the left
> looks very long (as her hair is up). I take this as an exceptionally
> intimate gaze.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

Aaahh, it is much better now. My monitor at work got realy bad, it is too
dark.
My home monitor is well calibrated and the portrait looks much better.
My grandfather mastered the light and was unmatched for black and white
portraits.
He was in the business for over 70 years, starting in the '20.
My aunt who runs the studio now says that it is amazing how much work she
has to put into setting up both the subject and the lighting, while my
grandfather used to do it on the fly. Her pictures are great but she knows
that she will never match her father.

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan@cox.net> wrote in message
news:cRLtd.420468$a85.411759@fed1read04...
>
> "Paul Bielec" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:cp7utt$m6s$1@dns3.cae.ca...
> >
> > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> > news:4RKtd.420143$a85.334235@fed1read04...
> > >
> > > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > > newsxJtd.26066$Ou1.1635317@weber.videotron.net...
> > > > Simon Stanmore wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 1> http/cakeru.image.pbase.com/image/15470706.jpg
> > > > 2> http/www.pbase.com/magus/image/15634978.jpg
> > > > 3> http/www.pbase.com/zidar/image/8973787.jpg
> > > > 4> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34326372.jpg
> > > >
> > > > 1st is well done, but ... er, well, not for me.
> > > > 2nd is fantastic in detail and communicates strongly
> > > > 3rd is pj-touching-cliché,
> > >
> > > I really don't see how the capture of unplanned emotion can EVER be
> > > cliche...unless the photographer goes out of their way to deliberately
> > stage
> > > a shot after a known famous pose. The raw, unplanned capture of these
> > > moments is always worthy of presentation so long as it is not
contrived.
> > >
> > > If skillfully captured emotion is cliche, then we're in for a very
> boring
> > > world of people photos.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The problem with this picture is that its effect is so predictible.
> > Pure documentary, nothing more. It shows sadness but nothing else.
>
> What wrong with documentary?
> I think if you take this shot within the context of the collection it is a
> part of, you may feel diferently. Maybe not... but that's OK. Not every
> shot has to have some hidden or mysterious question attached to it.
>
> > It doesn't provoke any unexpected reaction, anything one wouldn't think
> of.
> > If you asked 10 people to go take this picture, at least 9 would come
back
> > with just that.
> > With luck, the 10th person would bring you a picture that expressed
> > something more. Contradicting feelings for example.
>
> That's always interesting...when it exists...but if this didn't exist,
it's
> still worth capturing. I just don't think every shot has to be Pulitzer
to
> be worthy of appreciation.

Concept for Mark about stereotypical documentary photos: Been there, done
that.
Educating the uneducated,
me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:


> I really think you're bordering on snobbery here, Al.

That I don't understand. We all percieve images in different ways.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" wrote:

> Where do we naturally look when we look at people??
> -The eyes.
> So where does the typical snap-shooter place the eyes of a person in their
> snaps??
> -Smack dab in the middle of the viewfinder! (ugh).
>
> This is easy to illustrate from most people's experience:
>

Aided and abetted by the centrally placed brackets indicating the point of focus
in the viewfinder. Few understand they can take a half-pressure on the trigger
to lock focus and exposure and then reframe the shot.

Colin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D wrote:

>
> "Mark²" wrote:
>
>
>>Where do we naturally look when we look at people??
>>-The eyes.
>>So where does the typical snap-shooter place the eyes of a person in their
>>snaps??
>>-Smack dab in the middle of the viewfinder! (ugh).
>>
>>This is easy to illustrate from most people's experience:
>>
>
>
> Aided and abetted by the centrally placed brackets indicating the point of focus
> in the viewfinder. Few understand they can take a half-pressure on the trigger
> to lock focus and exposure and then reframe the shot.

Depends on the camera. On Minolta Maxxum AF (as they are mindful that focus and
exposure are two different things) the half depress locks the focus and the
meter is still free to change unless the AEL button is held down.

For all cameras: Read the manual!

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:41B77D90.DA1C1912@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>
>
> "Mark²" wrote:
>
> > Where do we naturally look when we look at people??
> > -The eyes.
> > So where does the typical snap-shooter place the eyes of a person in
their
> > snaps??
> > -Smack dab in the middle of the viewfinder! (ugh).
> >
> > This is easy to illustrate from most people's experience:
> >
>
> Aided and abetted by the centrally placed brackets indicating the point of
focus
> in the viewfinder. Few understand they can take a half-pressure on the
trigger
> to lock focus and exposure and then reframe the shot.
>
> Colin

What I typically do now when handing my camera to a stranger in these
instances is pre-focus the shot on my companion...and then put the camera in
manual-focus before handing it over and getting in the shot. Then all they
have to do is compose...**with my feet in the picture...and snap.

It helps, but nothing will be foolproof until there are no fools.

(And no...they aren't fools...they just aren't photogs)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:RaLtd.420260$a85.115905@fed1read04...
>
> "Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:41B77D90.DA1C1912@killspam.127.0.0.1...
> >
> >
> > "Mark²" wrote:
> >
> > > Where do we naturally look when we look at people??
> > > -The eyes.
> > > So where does the typical snap-shooter place the eyes of a person in
> their
> > > snaps??
> > > -Smack dab in the middle of the viewfinder! (ugh).
> > >
> > > This is easy to illustrate from most people's experience:
> > >
> >
> > Aided and abetted by the centrally placed brackets indicating the point
of
> focus
> > in the viewfinder. Few understand they can take a half-pressure on the
> trigger
> > to lock focus and exposure and then reframe the shot.
> >
> > Colin
>
> What I typically do now when handing my camera to a stranger in these
> instances is pre-focus the shot on my companion...and then put the camera
in
> manual-focus before handing it over and getting in the shot. Then all
they
> have to do is compose...**with my feet in the picture...and snap.
>
> It helps, but nothing will be foolproof until there are no fools.
>
> (And no...they aren't fools...they just aren't photogs)
>
>
Like, with camera set on the center auto focus point, having someone taking
a picture of myself and my wife...the building behind us was really sharp...