|
Couldn't agree more, John. Thoughtful
criticism is important. If an image is so-so it should be called
that. I like the fact you take the time to look and think before
commenting. We all have noticed that the number of images
provided each week seems to be slowly declining. I think the
image quality has also declined. We don't get many reviews
because too many photos are not quality images. Without reviews,
the number of images seems to go down. It looks like a chicken
and egg and egg situation. I also agree about the reasons;
photography has become too easy. Iphones and point and shoots
make it absurdly easy to get a photograph. But there is more to it
than a simple capture. I find myself falling into the trap all
too readily.
Thanks, John.
Don
On 8/17/12 8:24 AM, Jan Faul wrote:
Every time I write something I get pounced on. I am critical
of about 99% of photographs being taken today. This is due in
part to the equipment used to take them and partly due to
technique. With the advance of digital, photographers have
become lazy. They appear to believe that the camera can do
anything and everything for them including focus the camera, set
the correct DOF and ideal shutter speed, and yet nothing could
be further from the truth. Manufacturers set their products to
produce a ‘good enough’ picture, and if one is going to shoot on
P or A, you get what somebody else wants, not what you prefer.
So for this week’s comments, the daisies are not evoking
anything for as this is a case where the camera needs to be on a
tripod and the lens needs to be a macro type lens. The ‘Dogs” is
really about legs and a bum and the photographer is afraid to
say so, and the cathedral shot is crying out for a tripod and
more careful management of the DOF. I could see it if the pew
immediately in front of the camera were sharp and the rest of
the church OOF, but this image is not taken with a sufficient
F-stop to produce a focused shot at the apparent point of
interest. The face in the tree is nice, but not a great shot. It
seems to me that what is missing from all of these shots is
planning, vision, perhaps a tripod for spotty lighting
conditions like a church, and more control of the cameras. If
you want compose a photo, compose it carefully and take the
bloody camera off NORMAL. IF you need to shoot with a slower
shutter speed in the church for e example, brace yourself on the
pew in front of you, sit down, and take the shot where you
control the DOF.
The world is not set for AUTO photography. Good photographs
take vision and work. Doesn’t anybody read how to books any
more? Get a John Hedgecoe or (God forbid) an Ansel Adams book on
technique and READ IT. A Samsung manual is not a good place to
discover tips on how to make good pictures. And as far as
Photoshop is concerned, you cannot make garbage into a great
shot with PS anything. If used to be said that you can’t make a
sow’s ear into a silk purse and that goes to photographs too.
There i a lurker on this list named Palma Brozetti and Palma
made a wonderful shot of Market Street in the snow and it so
obviously completed the tasks of good composition and exposure
that it is a great shot. I’m sure she steadied herself, perhaps
used a tripod and was careful with the exposure The ‘je ne
c’est quois’ in her picture of Market St is what is missing from
this week’s gallery selections.
Yes, I know I’m being a bit harsh, but I do photography for a
living and to stand out, you have to stand out. This does not
mean that I think I’m the best photographer out there, as I am
firmly convinced that there is no ‘best’ photographer. But if
you treat the making of your images like they could be great
art, then success will come. What I am waiting for is for
somebody to win a Pulitzer Prize with an iPhone camera. I’m sure
it will happen. Canon and NIkon used to be the biggest sellers
of cameras, but now it’s Apple.
Jan Faul
OOF - Out Of Focus
DOF - Depth Of Field
Interesting. Nobody said a word about my feedback. I'm
fairly sure it was
sent, as I received it back from the list. That's fine, I
suppose, but a
bit discouraging; a bit like trying to carry a conversation
with a cliff
face. In fact, as far as I could tell, nobody else said a
word about this
week's offering. Ah, well. perhaps next time.
Andrew
On Sat, August 11, 2012 5:19 pm, asharpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
On Sat, August 11, 2012 8:27 am,
Andrew Davidhazy wrote:
The PhotoForum members'
gallery/exhibit space was updated August 11,
2012. Authors with work now on
display at:
http://people.rit.edu/andpph/gallery.html
include:
Elson T. Elizaga - Extraordinary
Claims
Beautiful portrait. Since the text
is so large, it is the subject,
though. This looks like a good
commercial ad, but it detracts from the
very nicely lit portrait of the boy.
I will say, however, that without the
text, the boy may very well look
simply very unhappy, and not quizzical at
all, especially since it looks a bit
wet under his left eye, as if he had
recently been crying.
John Palcewski - Dogs
Well, Jan mentioned you like butts,
and here's one, albeit on an amputee.
Without the title, the butt's the
subject. However, with the title, it
becomes rather an amusing
photograph, since the titular dogs are really not
interested in the photograph, and
are themselves on their way out of the
frame.
Scott Thurmond - Needs work
A good idea, but the composition is
too static. Perhaps it would be
improved by black and white (or much
more saturation, to draw attention to
the emblem still proudly sitting on
a rather sad carcass), or maybe
slanted, or maybe off center, I'm
not sure.
Bob McCulloch - Daisies
Pretty flowers, shot with a wide
aperture. It is simply a pretty picture,
and needs something more to be
something more. A wider aperture (or
longer lens) to further blur the
background and isolate the subject would
help; the background blur is
distinct enough to be a bit distracting.
Dan Mitchell - Cathedral
There's something HDR'ish about the
photo, yet the windows in front are
totally blown out. The verticals are
mostly vertical, and that's good, and
I'm wondering what's going on in
front with a long line of folks in the
center and spectators on the side. A
wedding? A funeral? A baptism? Seems
like a small affair, though, dwarfed
by the number of empty seats. So the
question becomes, what is the
subject? The tall arches are the most
distinct and easy to see, and look
as though their exposure was adjusted
in post. So, that's the subject for
me. If that was the intended subject,
that's good.
Yoram Gelman - Bark Gargoyle
My favorite this week. This is
something I would have photographed. It
might as well be in black and white,
and perhaps should be, except... for
the green sprout growing out of his
head. I like that, and would hate to
see it go. But perhaps in black and
white, increasing the green in the
conversion process would turn the
sprout white, making it more obvious.
Also, the circle of light at the top
right is distracting and makes my
eye jump back and forth from the
great face and the blurry light. You
could easily crop it off with no
loss to the photograph. But these are
nits; I could be convinced that the
light is the moon, and this fellow is
a wood gnome that only comes out in
the moonlight.
Andrew
--
http://andrewsharpe.com
|
