Can anyone take a good photograph?

[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:4RKtd.420143$a85.334235@fed1read04...
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news😛xJtd.26066$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.
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.

 

[Guest]

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

"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
> > news😛xJtd.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.

 

[Guest]

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

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in news:eLOdnRNCNKwPiSvcRVn-
ig@giganews.com:

> Do you know, or can you imagine, why that is?

I am lazy

That's part of the answer. I have played guitar, but I have
never used any substantial time to get good at it.



/Roland

 

[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: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
> > > news😛xJtd.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.
>
>
I agree.

 

[Guest]

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

Mark² wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news😛xJtd.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.

Just hang around a cemetery and you too can join the ranks!

>
> If skillfully captured emotion is cliche, then we're in for a very boring
> world of people photos.

Nonsense. There are a wide varity of human endeavors that evoke emotions in the
subject, the photographer and the viewer of the images. The 2nd image above
( http://www.pbase.com/magus/image/15634978.jpg ) shows an expression that is
much more complex, much more difficult to decode.

Hardly boring. Very compelling. Not cliché.

Cliché, BTW, does not only mean boring. It means, among other things, something
that has become overly familiar or commonplace. Go to washingtonpost.com and
other newspapers that have photojournalism sections and you will see many such
images.

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
news:toMtd.64449$IZ2.1799790@wagner.videotron.net...
> Mark² wrote:
> > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > news😛xJtd.26066$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.
>
> Just hang around a cemetery and you too can join the ranks!
>
> >
> > If skillfully captured emotion is cliche, then we're in for a very
boring
> > world of people photos.
>
> Nonsense. There are a wide varity of human endeavors that evoke emotions
in the
> subject, the photographer and the viewer of the images. The 2nd image
above
> ( http://www.pbase.com/magus/image/15634978.jpg ) shows an expression that
is
> much more complex, much more difficult to decode.
>
> Hardly boring. Very compelling. Not cliché.
>
> Cliché, BTW, does not only mean boring. It means, among other things,
something
> that has become overly familiar or commonplace. Go to washingtonpost.com
and
> other newspapers that have photojournalism sections and you will see many
such

So what?
This is an image that is part of a collection from this particular war.
View it in that unique context, and it is indeed a unique photo.
It is one part of the larger story.
Of COURSE there are more interesting shots to be had.
I made no claims that it deserves a Pulitzer.
I really think you're bordering on snobbery here, Al.

 

[Guest]

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

"Tom Hudson" <gbz@fvathyne.bet.hx> wrote in message
news:41b625ba$0$221$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
> Simon Stanmore wrote:
>> "Tom Hudson" <gbz@fvathyne.bet.hx> wrote in message
>> news:41b5fd16$0$220$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
>>
>> I agree that most people can agree on what is a good image. But a good
>> image doesn't have to be a 'pleasing' image or one that people even like
>> to view...
>> http://cakeru.image.pbase.com/image/15470706.jpg
>> http://www.pbase.com/magus/image/15634978.jpg
>> http://www.pbase.com/zidar/image/8973787.jpg
>> http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34326372.jpg
>> ...each is a good image but only the first would be considered a pleasing
>> one by most people.
>
> I really like the 2nd, I don't think I'd hang it on the wall in my house,
> but I do like it.

I very much like all 4 for different reasons, but am least 'impressed' with
No.1 and certainly wouldn't want it on my wall. But you and I are
photographers and that skews our opinion in this matter. I find No.2
extrememely compelling - it's one of my all-time favourite portraits. That's
the weird thing about keen photographers - what we like and what
non-photog's like very often differs. Other photog's like my portraits and
street photo's mostly and non-photog's usually like the scenics and animal
pic's.

>> Only that one would hang 'nicely' on a living space wall. If there are
>> rules that can be followed to produce consistently good and/or pleasing
>> images then nobody has yet let them out of the bag. I think that anyone
>> can get lucky and get a good/pleasing image with a camera. Anyone could
>> hit bullseye on a dart board too. What you are really asking (I think) is
>> if making good/pleasing images consistently is possible through applying
>> defined rules.
> >
> Not at all, I really need to work on communicating clearly <🙂
> I'm almost asking the opposite - Can people take good photos by instinct.
> It's not quite what I'm asking, but it's a lot closer.

The answer is a definite yes. Seperate learning to use a camera, lights,
darkroom, raw converter, etc. from the issue. The instinctual talent still
needs to master these tools to get consistent results. But once the tools
are mastered then someone with an instinct for visual art (on whatever
level) will be able to create lots of strong images.


>>>But can they? Are some people less 'stimulated', for want of a better
>>>word, by visuals? Sorry - it's starting to sound like a psychology exam.
>>
>> You're right. Some people are not turned on at all by visuals at all. My
>> mum has no interest in my 'real' photo's. She has no interest in
>> painting, sculpture or films either. She really wants to see lots and
>> lots of holiday snaps though, and she takes and cherishes more of these
>> sorts of photo's than anybody else I know.
>>
> I occasionally have a set conversation with my mum, it goes something
> like:
>
> mum: "Take a photo of that, that would make a good photo."
> me: "Err, no, that's alright"
> mum: "Oh go on, why not?"
> me: "Because it wouldn't make a good photo."
>
> I then get accused (sardonically) of being an 'artist'.
> She likes posing unwilling family members for impromptu photos in which
> everyone looks miserable because they're being posed in photos every time
> the opportunity arises. If I'd just thought of that I could have answered
> my own question - some people just can't see what makes a good photo and
> photos are all about _what_ _is_ in them. Composition and what shouldn't
> be in them be damned.

Yes, exclusion within the frame is as key as inclusion when making a good
image. Why not pose and direct your mothers chosen 'victims' yourself next
time? Posed portraits can make for great images - No.2 link is above not a
candid. Even unwilling subjects can make a good image.


>> They can learn to focus, expose, etc. to perfection. Light forming and
>> control can be learnt. An understanding of how a scene will be recorded
>> by the film/sensor can be learnt. Knowing how to process and print to
>> minimise or overcome the limitations of the film/sensor is also
>> learnable. But the process of creating good imagery goes beyond these
>> technicalities. I know avid photographers that have been at it for 40+
>> years and know every little thing about technique and equipment and yet
>> they take consistently dull, forgetable photographs. I know others (just
>> a few) that hit the ground running and were producing what most consider
>> good imagery from their first roll of film taken for the sake of image
>> making
>
> Well I can only hope I won't be the former, I don't think I will be, but
> they probably don't either.
>
> Tom

Some of them don't but some do and they don't give a damn. They love
photography despite their inability to produce strong images. They're the
good ones. The ones that really can't tell a good image from a bad one are
always gearheads. They have flagship SLR bodies, pro grade wide aperture
zooms and churn out endless pap all the time marveling at how sharp their
lovely new $1500 lens is. These people are why camera clubs in my country
are dying a slow death
--
Simon
http://www.pbase.com/stanmore

 

[Guest]

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

"Mick Brown" <nmcs@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:sDytd.63778$K7.16136@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>I think what you have here is an example of the answer you are truly
>looking
> for. Every person has a different perception on what a good image is.
> The
> response you get for each image is very much individual, for example:
>
> Photo 1: Technically perfect, but in my eyes boring (no offence to the
> photog, this is only because I have seen this type of shot 1000's of
> times)
>
> Photo2: Technically not so perfect, but I like it, because it is showing
> the
> subject in their true form.
>
> Photo 3: Extremely powerful Journalistic image, conjours up feelings of
> the
> waste of war and how humanity continues to destroy itself. Some of the
> general public may take offence to these type of images and say they hate
> the photo, they are not taking any notice of the technical expertise of
> the
> photog.
>
> Photo 4: Also technically perfect, I like this type of image, there is a
> story behind this that I will spend the next day or so trying to work out.
> Others may look at it and say the same as I did about the first shot.
>
> Each and every one of these photos will get different responses from
> different individuals, this is the wonderful thing about humans being
> unique. I could take a photo of a child, that to most of you would mean
> nothing at all.
>
> 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.
>
> We as photographers judge each other on technical merit, content,
> exposure,
> rule of thirds etc etc. But the general public will judge us purely on
> the
> wow factor and what emotions are conjured up from our art.
>
>
> --
> Michael Brown
> Melbourne Australia
> www.photo.net/photos/mlbrown


I think that many photographers include the wow factor and evoked emotion
when they judge an image. Anyway, as you like 3 of those 4 shots here's link
to the respective photographers galleries...
No.2 the portrait by Stefan Rohner ... http://www.pbase.com/magus ... All
good, nothing bad! Also at http://www.stefan-rohner.net/
No.3 the war B&W by James Mason ... http://www.pbase.com/zidar . I rarely
look at every image in a PBase gallery by opening the first image in his
'The war in Central Bosnia' gallery, reading the caption, and then clicking
'Next' all the way through the set is highly recomended.
No.4 the conceptual still-life by Dave Nitsche ...
http://www.pbase.com/davenit . The conceptual and 'Little Man' galleries are
especially good. Also at http://www.davenitsche.com/ . The 'About' section
on this site links to an Equipment List which surprises a lot of
photographers.
--
Simon
http://www.pbase.com/stanmore

 

[Guest]

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

"Simon Stanmore" <nomail@thanks.com> wrote:
> Each and every one of these photos will get different responses from
> different individuals, this is the wonderful thing about humans being
> unique. I could take a photo of a child, that to most of you would mean
> nothing at all.
>
> 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.

This is my favorite portrait, taken by a well-regarded photographer in the
area. It contrasts not only the color and lighting, but the child/animal
emotions. http://www.shelsecundaphotography.com/Portfolio/PDogBark.htm

(Shel has a lot of other nice ones in a book, and here:
http://www.shelsecundaphotography.com/pets.htm)

 

[Guest]

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

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


--
-- 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
news😀0Ktd.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" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:g4Ltd.420223$a85.232257@fed1read04...
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news😀0Ktd.26203$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?)

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?)

"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
news😛xJtd.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
news😛xMtd.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
> > > news😛xJtd.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