"Wide" critique

Nothing here but my dogmatic, often idiosyncratic, opinions. Take them or
leave them.

Bob


Paul Cassel 1
Something about this image doesn't quite register. Maybe it's the busy dock;
maybe it's the strange reflection of the clouds and sky. It's sort of pretty,
but the individual parts don't seem to work well together.

Tim Conway 1
The eerie lighting rescues this otherwise undistinguished image. The blazing
sun and ground haze suggest that it's already over 95°F (35°C) and probably
headed higher. Am I going to step out on that bridge in this weather,
especially knowing that the mosquitoes may be out before I've finished
navigating the trail? I may just head back to the lodge and hoist a cold one.

Tim Conway 2
With its bright colors, austere storefronts, and absence of people, this
photograph is reminiscent of an Edward Hopper painting. One suspects that Tim
may have seen the Hopper exhibit when it was on tour last year. The one
improvement I can think of would be to Photoshop out that wire.

Bret Douglas 1
OK, we get it: those guys are playing polo. But at least give us a shot where
we can see the ball!

Bret Douglas 2
Whose snout are you trying to ridicule here? That horse isn't one of your
hummingbirds. Hand him the 40D and see what he does to *your* nose!

Tim Conway 3
What are we groping for here, the "wide" sound of the guitar? It's a very
attractive image, but it's a bit too confined for my taste, given the mandate.

03 Tom Gabriel
That's nice and wide, but the picture is too tall, and the skyline (Toronto?)
is too far away.

01 Tom Gabriel
The idea is great. What could get our attention like a camera store? (Is that
an old rangefinder Leica that he's reaching for?) But the execution doesn't
really measure up. There seems to be a lot going on, but we don't actually see
much of it. And the greenish cast to the faux wood is off-putting.

02 Tom Gabriel
Another good idea that doesn't quite measure up. The train needs more
interesting cars, or at least a locomotive.

Doug Payne 1
A subtle, attractive image that suffers badly from being displayed against a
black background. I can imagine it looking really good against pale gray or
very pale beige.

Doug Payne 2
An ultimately disappointing picture. The colors are nice, but the motorcycle
is too crowded by the limits of the frame (as are the man and the dog). And
the rest of the image doesn't support the interest generated by the
motorcycle. One wonders what the rider is doing. Taking the picture, one
assumes, but that merely answers the question without resolving it.

Doug Payne 3
This picture confounds me. If the photographer thought so little of the
bridge, why didn't he just crop it out? It serves no useful purpose. I realize
there would be nothing left, but there's not much there anyway. Or am I blind
to something that others see?

Russell Durtschi
I like this one more than I might have expected. The composition is eccentric,
with the house facing away from the rest of the scene and the sun off by
itself. But it works somehow. And if you tried to normalize it by cropping off
the sun, what's left would be painfully ordinary.

Simon Steel 1
Wow! That poor church looks as though it spent 200 years on the rack while
some medieval pope tried to torture a confession out of it. I sure wouldn't
want that lens to get a bead on me.

Simon Steel 2
The background is moderately interesting, but I find the foreground objects,
particularly the railing, to be irritatingly distracting. I'd settle for
leaving the ring in the picture if I could somehow get the railing out.

Jim Kramer 03
"Wide eyed?" Maybe. But the four light reflections seem otherworldly. Maybe
that was the intention?

Jim Kramer 01
Like my "Happy Hour" picture from last month, this picture has to contend with
a black background into which it seamlessly merges. But while my picture
handled that situation poorly, this one handles it well. Indeed, I might
choose not to display it against a white background, even if I could. The cat
in the window makes the picture, of course. He deserves a catnip mouse for his
willingness to pose.

Jim Kramer 02
I realize that macro lens DOF is pretty hard to manage, but at that speed and
aperture *something* ought to appear to be in focus.

Cooper 1 & 2
Fairly nice action shots. Their composition would be improved by zooming in,
but with the "wide" mandate, I'll give them a pass.

Jump Troy Piggins
I guess I like this better than Troy does. It's kind of a cute picture, and
the fence rail doesn't bother me. I'd have told the dog to get back in the
picture, but he probably wouldn't have listened.

Milky Way Troy Piggins
Not of astronomical quality, obviously, but a nice image nonetheless. I've
photographed snow that came out looking like that; maybe that's the closest to
snow that you can find in OZ.

Bob & Martha Coe
I can't critique my own pictures, and I've got better sense than to presume to
critique my wife's. (Full disclosu I did write her captions. So if you
don't like those, blame me.)

Alan Browne
A rather ordinary image, but very tastefully rendered. The colors are nice;
the composition is good; it's technically correct. What's not to like?

Alan Browne 4
This one needed a haze filter and/or a polarizer. And at the risk of the pot
calling the kettle black, it suffers from the same inattention to the horizon
that spoiled two of Alan's pictures last month. Alan, you've gotta get a Katz
Eye if they make one for that camera.

Alan Browne 1
This appears to be from the same shoot as Alan's antique automobile from last
month and exhibits the same Kodachrome-slide underexposure. So those who
bashed him about it last month will probably do so again. But obviously this
is a stylistic choice that Alan has deliberately made, like it or not. I sort
of do like it, but can understand why some may not. One thing I think I would
have done is place the subject a few pixel rows higher in the frame.

Bowser 1
I take Browser's point about the dimensions of these bruisers arguably meeting
the "wide" mandate, but it strikes me as a bit of a stretch. It's certainly an
OK shapshot; a washed-out sky on game day can't be helped. But unless you have
a kid enrolled at Masconomet Regional H.S., you might be forgiven for saying
"So what?"

Bowser 3
By far the best of Bowser's three submissions. I might have been tempted to
move it a tad higher in the frame, but not at the expense of the phone poles,
which seem, counterintuitively, to contribute to the composition. My wife
thinks this is the building that once housed Blottner Woodworking, where for a
couple of dollars you could buy enough scrap wood fragments, dowel rods, etc.
to keep your kids occupied for days.

Bowser 2
I don't think this picture works very well. It's too cluttered (the 9/11 flags
don't help); the eye is drawn to a distant and irrelevant background; and the
only interesting building in the school complex is clipped and off to the
side. And the distortion is jarring because the picture contains no other
evidence that a wide-angle lens was used. (Why is there so much distortion
anyway? 40mm isn't all that wide on a 5D.) Bowser's usual work is much better
than this.

Bret Douglas 5
What the Hell is going on here? A burger eating contest? I guess the "wide"
mandate is in the mouths of the contestants. In any case the guy with the
earphone appears ready to lose his lunch. Technically and compositionally, the
picture (taken with Bret's 18-month-old 40D) is fine. What makes Bret think he
needs a 5D2?

Solomon Peachy
One hopes that hat is faux fur. We wouldn't like to think that any animals
were harmed in the composition of this image!

Paul Furman
No wonder Paul called for this mandate: this is a damn fine picture. Along
with its technical and compositional virtues, I think it shows off the Sigma
12-24 to pretty good effect. I can't think of anything negative to say about
it, so I won't.

Ken Navrodnick
Not quite sure what the objective is here, but the image is well rendered. I
guess we should always have *somebody* working in B&W.

Jeff Heyen
Very nice. We should get all the good pictures we can of Venice before global
warming washes it away.

Robert Coe wrote:
Nothing here but my dogmatic, often idiosyncratic, opinions. Take them or
leave them.

May I add to them? Ah, well I'm going to anyways... thanks for commenting.


Paul Cassel 1
Something about this image doesn't quite register. Maybe it's the busy dock;
maybe it's the strange reflection of the clouds and sky. It's sort of pretty,
but the individual parts don't seem to work well together.

Yeah, more foreground and some (diagonal?) tying it together.


Tim Conway 1
The eerie lighting

The graduated neutral density filter.


Tim Conway 2
With its bright colors, austere storefronts, and absence of people, this
photograph is reminiscent of an Edward Hopper painting.

Bret Douglas 2
Whose snout are you trying to ridicule here? That horse isn't one of your
hummingbirds. Hand him the 40D and see what he does to *your* nose!

He looks proud that his nose is as big as his body :-)


Tim Conway 3
What are we groping for here, the "wide" sound of the guitar? It's a very
attractive image, but it's a bit too confined for my taste, given the mandate.

03 Tom Gabriel
That's nice and wide, but the picture is too tall, and the skyline (Toronto?)
is too far away.

01 Tom Gabriel
The idea is great. What could get our attention like a camera store? (Is that
an old rangefinder Leica that he's reaching for?) But the execution doesn't
really measure up. There seems to be a lot going on, but we don't actually see
much of it. And the greenish cast to the faux wood is off-putting.

02 Tom Gabriel
Another good idea that doesn't quite measure up. The train needs more
interesting cars, or at least a locomotive.

Just simple maybe, or powerful... I like it.


Doug Payne 1
A subtle, attractive image that suffers badly from being displayed against a
black background. I can imagine it looking really good against pale gray or
very pale beige.

Doug Payne 2
An ultimately disappointing picture. The colors are nice, but the motorcycle
is too crowded by the limits of the frame (as are the man and the dog). And
the rest of the image doesn't support the interest generated by the
motorcycle. One wonders what the rider is doing. Taking the picture, one
assumes, but that merely answers the question without resolving it.

I like the energy of tight cropping the bike and runner.


Doug Payne 3
This picture confounds me. If the photographer thought so little of the
bridge, why didn't he just crop it out? It serves no useful purpose. I realize
there would be nothing left, but there's not much there anyway. Or am I blind
to something that others see?

Uglyu junk in the foreground no doubt. Maybe someone has gotten this
approach to work but not me.


Russell Durtschi
I like this one more than I might have expected. The composition is eccentric,
with the house facing away from the rest of the scene and the sun off by
itself. But it works somehow. And if you tried to normalize it by cropping off
the sun, what's left would be painfully ordinary.

Ah, I hadn't noticed those qualities, thanks.


Simon Steel 1
Wow! That poor church looks as though it spent 200 years on the rack while
some medieval pope tried to torture a confession out of it. I sure wouldn't
want that lens to get a bead on me.

Simon Steel 2
The background is moderately interesting, but I find the foreground objects,
particularly the railing, to be irritatingly distracting. I'd settle for
leaving the ring in the picture if I could somehow get the railing out.

Good point, I really do like the ring though.



Alan Browne 1
This appears to be from the same shoot as Alan's antique automobile from last
month and exhibits the same Kodachrome-slide underexposure. So those who
bashed him about it last month will probably do so again. But obviously this
is a stylistic choice that Alan has deliberately made, like it or not. I sort
of do like it, but can understand why some may not.

In another crit mid-day conditions were mentioned, I don't mind that though.

One thing I think I would
have done is place the subject a few pixel rows higher in the frame.

That would be more natural (horizon in the center) but compositionally I
see why he'd want more sky & less dirt. I agree there is a bit of
awkwardness in this though and am not sure if 'normalness' is the issue
or not.


Bowser 1
I take Browser's point about the dimensions of these bruisers arguably meeting
the "wide" mandate, but it strikes me as a bit of a stretch. It's certainly an
OK shapshot; a washed-out sky on game day can't be helped. But unless you have
a kid enrolled at Masconomet Regional H.S., you might be forgiven for saying
"So what?"

It has enough gusto to overcome the snapshot look for me.


Bowser 3
By far the best of Bowser's three submissions. I might have been tempted to
move it a tad higher in the frame,

Not my fave at all. This is the same vertical crop issue as Alan's
discussed above. More thoughts about that?



--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Robert Coe wrote:
Alan Browne
A rather ordinary image, but very tastefully rendered. The colors are nice;
the composition is good; it's technically correct. What's not to like?

Thank you.


Alan Browne 4
This one needed a haze filter and/or a polarizer. And at the risk of the pot
calling the kettle black, it suffers from the same inattention to the horizon
that spoiled two of Alan's pictures last month. Alan, you've gotta get a Katz
Eye if they make one for that camera.

I avoid polarizers on wide angle shots as you get severe differences in
exposure making skies look bizarre. I do not carry a haze filter and
perhaps the shot may have been improved with one.

The shot was taken on a bubble leveled tripod for the simple reason that
there was (as you can see) no natural horizon line. I too found it to
appear lopsided, mainly due to the angle of the shoreline as presented.


Alan Browne 1
This appears to be from the same shoot as Alan's antique automobile from last
month and exhibits the same Kodachrome-slide underexposure. So those who
bashed him about it last month will probably do so again. But obviously this
is a stylistic choice that Alan has deliberately made, like it or not. I sort
of do like it, but can understand why some may not. One thing I think I would
have done is place the subject a few pixel rows higher in the frame.

The exposure is optimal. I could have opened it up 1/2 and lost the
detail in the windows and on the pale gravel, but the shadows on the
left would have remained dead black. Further opening up would have been
overexposed period. It may have been better later in the day, but I was
not able to stay there longer...

--
-- 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: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
Nothing here but my dogmatic, often idiosyncratic, opinions. Take them or
leave them.

Bowser 1
I take Browser's point about the dimensions of these bruisers arguably
meeting
the "wide" mandate, but it strikes me as a bit of a stretch. It's
certainly an
OK shapshot; a washed-out sky on game day can't be helped. But unless you
have
a kid enrolled at Masconomet Regional H.S., you might be forgiven for
saying
"So what?"

Well, they beat the #12 ranked team in the state, that's so what!! Agree,
it's just a snapshot, but I thought some human faces would be welcome in the
shoot-in. We all seem to be a little people-shy.


Bowser 3
By far the best of Bowser's three submissions. I might have been tempted
to
move it a tad higher in the frame, but not at the expense of the phone
poles,
which seem, counterintuitively, to contribute to the composition. My wife
thinks this is the building that once housed Blottner Woodworking, where
for a
couple of dollars you could buy enough scrap wood fragments, dowel rods,
etc.
to keep your kids occupied for days.

I think you're right. Through the years, this building has housed dozens of
businesses, and has been remodeled many, many times. The city (Lawrence) is
starting to make a comeback, so I have hopes for its success as lofts. It's
a good location for commuters; T station right across the street.


Bowser 2
I don't think this picture works very well. It's too cluttered (the 9/11
flags
don't help); the eye is drawn to a distant and irrelevant background; and
the
only interesting building in the school complex is clipped and off to the
side. And the distortion is jarring because the picture contains no other
evidence that a wide-angle lens was used. (Why is there so much distortion
anyway? 40mm isn't all that wide on a 5D.) Bowser's usual work is much
better
than this.

Know what? Everything you say is spot on. I sent three pics to a local
paper, and they chose this one. So I figured "hey, they're pros, they know
good shots." Sigh...

I'll work on that distortion, too. Geez, submit one piece of crap and they
wanna hang you.

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
Robert Coe wrote:


Bowser 1
I take Browser's point about the dimensions of these bruisers arguably
meeting
the "wide" mandate, but it strikes me as a bit of a stretch. It's
certainly an
OK shapshot; a washed-out sky on game day can't be helped. But unless you
have
a kid enrolled at Masconomet Regional H.S., you might be forgiven for
saying
"So what?"

It has enough gusto to overcome the snapshot look for me.

Yes! The crowd is with me!



Bowser 3
By far the best of Bowser's three submissions. I might have been tempted
to
move it a tad higher in the frame,

Not my fave at all. This is the same vertical crop issue as Alan's
discussed above. More thoughts about that?

You'd crop this vertically? For a groundscraper? Hmmm.....

Böwser wrote:

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
Robert Coe wrote:

Bowser 3
By far the best of Bowser's three submissions. I might have been
tempted to
move it a tad higher in the frame,

Not my fave at all. This is the same vertical crop issue as Alan's
discussed above. More thoughts about that?

You'd crop this vertically? For a groundscraper? Hmmm.....

No, I thought it looked like you may have framed with the building
centered vertically (tilt) to have the fish effect apply right; then
cropped out some sidewalk to give more sky but in thinking again, it
probably wasn't cropped. The issue I was wondering about is if cropping
like that makes a scene look unnatural, probably not necessarily, just a
thought I was exploring; something I'd recently struggled with in my own
shots. Alan's old buildings shot has this composition: more sky, less
dirt. One submission had a tiny little bridge thread along the bottom
with 98% sky and no dirt, I was struggling with this idea also recently.
I'm sure it can be done but not easy.

Back to the groundscraper, shooting from atop a double-decker bus would
have given a less wavy facade, maybe it would have worked with the
camera level too. Your angle was somewhere between.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:53:11 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:
: Böwser wrote:
:
: "Paul Furman" wrote in message
: ...
: Robert Coe wrote:
:
: Bowser 3
: By far the best of Bowser's three submissions. I might have been
: tempted to
: move it a tad higher in the frame,
:
: Not my fave at all. This is the same vertical crop issue as Alan's
: discussed above. More thoughts about that?
:
: You'd crop this vertically? For a groundscraper? Hmmm.....
:
: No, I thought it looked like you may have framed with the building
: centered vertically (tilt) to have the fish effect apply right; then
: cropped out some sidewalk to give more sky but in thinking again, it
: probably wasn't cropped. The issue I was wondering about is if cropping
: like that makes a scene look unnatural, probably not necessarily, just a
: thought I was exploring; something I'd recently struggled with in my own
: shots. Alan's old buildings shot has this composition: more sky, less
: dirt. One submission had a tiny little bridge thread along the bottom
: with 98% sky and no dirt, I was struggling with this idea also recently.
: I'm sure it can be done but not easy.
:
: Back to the groundscraper, shooting from atop a double-decker bus would
: have given a less wavy facade, maybe it would have worked with the
: camera level too. Your angle was somewhere between.

Let's face it: when you use a fisheye, you've made a conscious decision to
sacrifice all pretense of reality. The resulting image can be sensibly
regarded only as a work of art, and the real building is merely a raw material
utilized in the production process. So whether the surface of the building is
wavy or the lens treats each part of the building consistently are quibbles
devoid of relevance. The image must be enjoyed (or disparaged) simply for what
it is, and not for the correctness (or lack thereof) of the mathematical
transformation that brought it about.

Pompous pronouncements aside, I've re-thought my assertion that the subject
should ideally be higher in the frame. The yellow line in the middle of the
road tries to sell itself as the bottom edge of the subject. But it isn't; and
now that I've stared at it long enough for that fact to sink in, I no longer
think the subject looks too low.

Bob

Robert Coe wrote:
Nothing here but my dogmatic, often idiosyncratic, opinions. Take them or
leave them.

Bob


Russell Durtschi
I like this one more than I might have expected. The composition is eccentric,
with the house facing away from the rest of the scene and the sun off by
itself. But it works somehow. And if you tried to normalize it by cropping off
the sun, what's left would be painfully ordinary.



Thanks very much for those comments, Bob. That is almost exactly how
this photo came to be the way it was. When I looked at the original
picture the whole scene seemed a bit odd and I was afraid the sun would
be too distracting. So I did a crop with just the house and it just
wasn't that interesting. So I put it back in.

Russell

"JT's Keeper" wrote in message
...


- JT
didn't realize he lived next door (within 10 miles) to Böwser

No kidding? What town/city? Let's go get drunk!

* Böwser wrote :

"JT's Keeper" wrote in message
...

- JT
didn't realize he lived next door (within 10 miles) to Böwser

No kidding? What town/city? Let's go get drunk!

I'm there too. Just gimme some time to fly over from Aus...

--
Troy Piggins - I always appreciate critique
[SI] Shoot-In http://www.pbase.com/shootin