A few randoms for C+C

dazftw

They won't be to everyone's taste but id like to hear some opinions Working on a scrapbook for applying to college so I'm filling it with photos and adding discussions and stuff of that nature.

magicbastarder

there's nothing in the third which holds any interest from me; no 'moment' being captured. i do like the first one though. and the second kinda sneaks up on you.

pullandbang

First one has the makings of a great shot. I'd be inclined to crop the street beyond the green hoarding as I find my eye wandering up to the top corner of the shot to see if there is any connection to the woman at the gate - and there isn't.

Second one is a flat landscape with half a person - doesn't work for me. Possible step back and include the whole person?

Third one looks like you clicked by mistake. No point of interest just bits of everything. Half a shop sign, half a shoulder on the right, half a leg on the left - none of which add any interest to the shot.

All of them are very grainy - scans?

bullpost

I like the first one best - the only gripe I'd have with it is I'm not mad on the perspective.

The second one reminds me of some prints I saw recently from a second year photography degree course exhibition so you could be on to something there, though personally I'm struggling to see the appeal.

I'd have the same opinion on the third one as other posters.

dazftw

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's nothing in the third which holds any interest from me; no 'moment' being captured. i do like the first one though. and the second kinda sneaks up on you.

Yeah the 3rd has very little merit. I liked his pose and that's it really. The other elements are too distracting.

The composition in the first is definitely off. I have another shot here which would have worked way better if I got her feet but she saw me and asked me to stop so I did. Another time!



The 2nd is my favorite for reasons ill explain further down.

pullandbang wrote: »

First one has the makings of a great shot. I'd be inclined to crop the street beyond the green hoarding as I find my eye wandering up to the top corner of the shot to see if there is any connection to the woman at the gate - and there isn't.

Yeah the composition is off I knew that even when I finished editing it. I try not to crop the best I can, the above photo is severely cropped.

pullandbang wrote: »

Second one is a flat landscape with half a person - doesn't work for me. Possible step back and include the whole person?

The second was never meant to be a landscape shot if that makes sense. I've tried a few up there before and the land is pretty much featureless its very hard to get anything decent. That and I'm really bad at landscapes anyway haha

This is supposed to be a kinda "put you there photo". I had a few more of this same kinda shot but this is the one that stood out. It's almost 3D the contrast between her and the huge mountain it kind of sucks you in making you feel like you know what it was like to walk up it.

I don't know if that makes sense but it did to me before I even took the shot.

pullandbang wrote: »

Third one looks like you clicked by mistake. No point of interest just bits of everything. Half a shop sign, half a shoulder on the right, half a leg on the left - none of which add any interest to the shot.

All of them are very grainy - scans?

No mistake. Noticed the guy in the middle staring down the street not moving while everyone else was and thought it was interesting. It didn't work out at all but I figured id get some opinions on it.

They are scans of film yes. My scanner is really bad. Its horrible.

bullpost wrote: »

I like the first one best - the only gripe I'd have with it is I'm not mad on the perspective.

The second one reminds me of some prints I saw recently from a second year photography degree course exhibition so you could be on to something there, though personally I'm struggling to see the appeal.

I'd have the same opinion on the third one as other posters.

Yeah composition could have been better. I'll get her again quicker and in better light.




Cheers for the lengthy critiques guys! Anyone have different opinions? Good or bad or argee/disagree with some of my reasons?

AnimalRights

None of them do anything for me...
I get the impression that you're looking for a photograph to hard rather then letting a photograph come naturally.

sprinkles

First one would work better with a crop, as mentioned the top left is a bit distracting. And maybe a vignette? I think this composition is better than the second one you have of her as you get a bit of her face and can see her hand trying to open the gate (at least that's what it looks like she's trying to do).

2nd one, at first I didn't see anything interesting in it but after your explanation of it I looked at it again. It kind of looks like she's standing in front of a large print of the landscape and works pretty well without the full body in shot. Maybe crop it so she's dead centre?

3rd doesn't do anything for me. It's far too busy and nothing really stands out, except the Costa Sign partially out of shot.

dazftw

AnimalRights wrote: »

None of them do anything for me...
I get the impression that you're looking for a photograph to hard rather then letting a photograph come naturally.

All of these came naturally, I didn't go looking for them as such. The second one I noticed how there was a contrast between her and the mountain. I took a few shots and got this one I liked.

I didn't setup(this is probably a bad word to use) anything. It all happened naturally.

Maybe its because the way I describe them? I'm putting too much thought into them? You think I'm trying too hard?

sprinkles wrote: »

First one would work better with a crop, as mentioned the top left is a bit distracting. And maybe a vignette? I think this composition is better than the second one you have of her as you get a bit of her face and can see her hand trying to open the gate (at least that's what it looks like she's trying to do).

Yeah she's throwing cat food through the gap. I've seen her plenty of times. Just never had the camera on me!

sprinkles wrote: »

2nd one, at first I didn't see anything interesting in it but after your explanation of it I looked at it again. It kind of looks like she's standing in front of a large print of the landscape and works pretty well without the full body in shot. Maybe crop it so she's dead centre?

I'll give a centre crop a go



Not much different I don't think?

magicbastarder

don't do a vignette. de baby jesus hates vignettes.

dazftw

magicbastarder wrote: »

don't do a vignette. de baby jesus hates vignettes.

haha, yeah I wont. Not a fan of adding anything after the fact.

sprinkles

magicbastarder wrote: »

don't do a vignette. de baby jesus hates vignettes.

Indeed he does but he's also very forgiving

Have you looked at a B&W conversion for the first one?

Yeah, the crop doesn't add much but I think she's still a little bit to the right. I think having her dead centre looks better but not by much. And it's a personal preference.

dazftw

I'm going to try not sound elitist but I don't convert color film to black and white.

Though for the sake of the argument I did it and it does add to it quite a bit I think.

sarkozy

This photo relies on colour. I think the original was better than the crop and B&W versions.

It may not be the most amazing photo, but there's a mystery in it, and there's a good feel of the texture of the scene, which is very evocative of (I presume) inner Dublin.

I would say, to improve your photos, pay more attention to the subject matter. Visualise in your mind first your initial point of interest is in a scene and bring that out as best you can. It may be a thing, a texture, a colour, a shape, a feel.

Also, bear in mind, some photographic styles work better in series rather than individually, and I find many photos on here are ripped from a context which would make them more meaningful and successful as photos.

Also, I believe people should try out taking photos quickly and taking photos slowly. I think photos are a very analytical art form, so it actually pays off bigtime if you spend more composing a photo, keeping your vision in mind. And just experiment, experiment, experiment. In any one day, I may do all kinds of things. Also, spend time analyising/looking at 'famous' photographers who you admire and learn from those.

I know what it's like to put a portfolio together, but whatever it is I did, I was accepted into an NCAD course, then turned it down due to work pressures. Just keep working at it, I think I can see you're the type who observes well.

dazftw

sarkozy wrote: »

This photo relies on colour. I think the original was better than the crop and B&W versions.

It may not be the most amazing photo, but there's a mystery in it, and there's a good feel of the texture of the scene, which is very evocative of (I presume) inner Dublin.

I would say, to improve your photos, pay more attention to the subject matter. Visualise in your mind first your initial point of interest is in a scene and bring that out as best you can. It may be a thing, a texture, a colour, a shape, a feel.

Also, bear in mind, some photographic styles work better in series rather than individually, and I find many photos on here are ripped from a context which would make them more meaningful and successful as photos.

Also, I believe people should try out taking photos quickly and taking photos slowly. I think photos are a very analytical art form, so it actually pays off bigtime if you spend more composing a photo, keeping your vision in mind. And just experiment, experiment, experiment. In any one day, I may do all kinds of things. Also, spend time analyising/looking at 'famous' photographers who you admire and learn from those.

I know what it's like to put a portfolio together, but whatever it is I did, I was accepted into an NCAD course, then turned it down due to work pressures. Just keep working at it, I think I can see you're the type who observes well.

Now there's a critique for you!

I agree with you spending more time will yield better results. I have a kinda quick shot documentary head about me? So I shoot quick with the smaller cameras..

When I'm using my medium format I usually spend a lot longer on everything.

I have yet to try out large format but its something I will try when I have the money.

sarkozy

Take a look at this interview with (my hero) Stephen Shore. http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/extended/archives/a_conversation_with_stephen_shore/

He touches off some of your questions, and I would imagine he's a great teacher.

It can feel daunting to work for a photo, but Shore's experience was large format disciplined him to take photos that matched his vision. He insists upon his students that they learn this way.

What I've personally found is that both taking shots slowly and quickly benefit each other. Considered photos train you to look and think so that your 'snapshots' are better. You build up photographic 'muscle'. Equally, slow photos can often feel static (even if there is a good sense of composition, depth, light, etc.), and unless this is something you're going for, the ephemeral nature of the 'snapshot' can also help you to imbue planned shots with extra feeling. But this is a personal thing, I find.

DaireQuinlan

I think what's commonly called "street photography" is probably the most difficult to master of any of the various photographic disciplines. I don't think I've ever managed to take one even passable street photograph. When it's done well it can be completely breathtaking, but there's often only a fraction of a second between a stunning shot and a shot of astonishing vacuity and banality. In addition my deep rooted misanthropy makes it quite difficult to contemplate taking pictures of people