Black (4 pics)

Richard

1.

2.


3.


4.

C&C always welcome.

Cheers,

snwdrft

your shutter speed is too low on #1, and the shot's reason for being is unclear. avoid cutting limbs off.

#2 is out of focus, otherwise the amusing ipod + anne rice combo would be more compelling/obvious.

#3 is a pretty girl, that's about it.

#4 is overexposed, but worth working on to see if you can save it.

michswiss

Out of the four, I prefer #3. I like the setting and the composition, but it would have been nice to have some hint of what she's reacting to.

TonyCooper

snwdrft wrote:

your shutter speed is too low on #1, and the shot's reason for being is unclear. avoid cutting limbs off.

#2 is out of focus, otherwise the amusing ipod + anne rice combo would be more compelling/obvious.

#3 is a pretty girl, that's about it.

#4 is overexposed, but worth working on to see if you can save it.

I don't see evidence of too low a shutter speed in #1. The caveat of not cutting limbs off is balanced by
the school of including only what adds.

The interest factor in this couple is all above the waist. The image gains nothing by being a full-body view.

It seems his left knee (right as we view it) was the point of focus in #2, but the face need not be that
sharply in focus for this type of shot.

#3 is a nice crop for the diagonals, but I agree that there's not much here.

#4 is a keeper just for that shaft of light that illuminates the face. From the shadow, it's a high noon shot,
so the people at the tables are going to be over-exposed if the forefront figure is exposed properly.

Foques

I want that duster the guy is wearing in #1.

lizzard_nyc

Richard,

The guy in #2 looks straight out of central casting for the book he's reading--Anne Rice does the Vampire chronicles etc., actually they all look like they could play a role in one of her movies. #4, what a character!

I like them all and while 3 leaves you wondering so what? I like the look of it.

Wil Davis

Nice job!

I like all of them (but I might have cropped different…)

Wow, just look at the texture in the top right of #1 (keyhole/lock etc. - I'd have moved in for some close-ups…)

#2 - I wish his face was in focus (w/o focus, looks like an accident… ooops!)

#3 - what a gorgeous woman! Love the hoops (I'd have trimmed just a bit on both sides; made it a bit more portrait, and avoided the unnecessary stuff on the right, and the lines on the left which lead me up the hill, away from her…); the guys in the b/g would balance it nicely!

#4 - great study, but a bit too central for me - I wonder what is going through his mind?
…next meal perhaps?

Love the tones in all of them!



- Wil

snwdrft

TonyCooper wrote:

I don't see evidence of too low a shutter speed in #1. The caveat of not cutting limbs off is balanced by
the school of including only what adds.

the woman's hair looks oof to me. only the exif would tell us for sure.

TonyCooper wrote:

The interest factor in this couple is all above the waist. The image gains nothing by being a full-body view.

if you're cutting off limbs, at least don't leave half the hand. regardless, I find it boring. just my opinion

[...]

TonyCooper wrote:

#4 is a keeper just for that shaft of light that illuminates the face. From the shadow, it's a high noon shot,
so the people at the tables are going to be over-exposed if the forefront figure is exposed properly.

we can agree to disagree.

Richard

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone. It is always interesting to see other people's ideas of what works and what doesn't.

A few comments to the comments. I don't really see a focus issue in #1, but #2 does have one. If you don't have cape envy (like I do) #1 may not mean much. Glad to see that Liz picked up on what interested me in #2. It was after sunset and I was shooting wide open at f/4, but trying to get the book cover in focus. I had plenty of time and thought I would get the face as well, but I was wrong. Oh well. There really isn't any story out of frame in #3--or in it, I admit. Sometimes it's just nice to see someone beautiful on the street instead of the usual fare, and so I took the shot and liked it. The light was harsh on #4. I exposed for the blacks knowing that it would blow out some of the background, but I don't regret the choice, as nothing important is going on there.

Cheers,

Richard

snwdrft wrote:

the woman's hair looks oof to me. only the exif would tell us for sure.

Everything that matters is in what you see, not in the EXIF data. Yes, her hair isn't razor sharp, but I don't believe it's due to shutter speed. I also don't think it would matter much if it were razor sharp, since that was not what interested me. To satisfy your curiosity, it was ISO 800, 180mm, f/5, 1/800 sec.

snwdrft wrote:

if you're cutting off limbs, at least don't leave half the hand. regardless, I find it boring. just my opinion

There's no hand at all. There is something at the bottom of the frame which might be her purse or (more likely) a no-parking barrier on the sidewalk. TBH, I hadn't noticed it, but it would be easy enough to crop out. You would still find it boring, I imagine.