C-h-e-e-r-s
david-low
Registered Users Posts: 754 Major grins
This was a chance encounter that captured from overhead this brief eye-catching moment of these 4 chilling-out ladies.
My gallery: http://david-low.smugmug.com
0
Comments
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
Thanks Richard for comments.
About the blur, it felt ok to me with one lady already lifted the cup to toast and the lower right lady action of punching the air. Its kind of "yes-lets drink to our &^%$&*".
I like the blur. I might play around with the crop--both tighter and more open--but would probably settle on something close to what you did.
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
Sometimes its not a question whether "would it be better" as it wasn't a studio shot. I just have to cease whatever opportunity presented to me at that point of time and I'm pretty happy the way it turns out. The motion perhaps adds to the authenticity of a impromptu street shot.
Thanks for dropping in.
I did played around the crop and had tried a square but find it too tight. So I settled with some darken spaced to both sides to give a sense of stillness in the dark with a 7x6 crop (medium format crop)
Yes, we know that. This is why street photography / PJ is the most challenging "genre" (if one can call it that) to get a great shot. This is a good shot, and if you said, "yup, there's absolutely no way I can take another shot because..." then OK. That is that. The blur may add to it, or it may not. We do not know.
Remember, Robert Frank took over 27000 exposures to get the 84 he wanted for the book.
But you know, forget it. I will keep quiet. Looks like people prefer "great grab" comments.
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
You fault me because of this?
Richardson,
I do not know what work you up. I intend to answer honestly and earnestly your comment and I reply about my preference, that's about it. I'm hearing you out and just that in this case I have my personal choice. There is no right or wrong, and no, I'm not here to listen only to "great grab" comment.
You ask almost the 2nd time "Would it be better if it's more stationary? Don't know. May be it does, may be it doesn't."
So perhaps you may like to hear this in order to be satisfied. I can envisage that a still hand will be monotonous. Why, intuitively I just knew it. I don't need another proof of a still hand to compare. I can simply imagine.
You need not have to quote me Robert Frank because I don't make a living from photography. But you do, and such reply of yours will not put you in good advertisement, I'm afraid.
Cheers.
I'm sorry if I sound harsh. My only goal, really, is wanting to see better photography. I am not criticizing to put someone down, or pull myself up. I am only suggesting possibilities.
But you're right and I am wrong. This is your photograph and I'm sorry if I offended.
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
Really?
David, I also like the scene, with blur.
Certainly with appropriate wildlife shots a bit (or lot) of blur - when done well - can make all the difference between a std. 'record' shot and something more.
pp
Flickr
Thanks Richard,
This shot was taken handheld with hand resting on 2nd floor wall parapet, hand fully stretched and looking thru the flip LCD. On hindsight, I should have framed it better or shot it wider.
Thanks Paul.
You what you could get when you could get it. It was a fluid situation (over in a second); your setup and position-hasty.
Monday morning quarterbacks could suggest shoulda', coulda, woulda', pay no mind with no remorse
You did good. Good job...
.
Not sayin' it applies to this shot (cuz I don't think it does IMHO) but there is something to be said for only displaying photographs that are really good, rather than making excuses such as 'it's the best I could get in a difficult situation'. We all have those mediocre shots that nevertheless really thrill us, the photographer, because we know how hard it was to get. It's a different matter to share them with the rest of the world.
...and we all know examples of snapshots that get posted as good photographs. More often than not, it is just an inexperienced shooter, but not always...
I agree not always, but maybe in street/pj the capture rules.
On the other end of the spectrum, the landscape folks have nice pix, they use tripods huge lenses and have patience (I do that), pixel peepers have a field day.
Perhaps the photog doesn't have the discretion to call a good picture (the best he can say is I'm satisfied with the image), the viewer has the right to call it good/bad and that opinion will vary all over.
I was shooting stadium moto racing, had the focus point on the lead guy. He lost traction on the apex, pulled down #2,3, & 4. The bikes were doing endos, guys were airborn coming at me. I just kept shooting my bursts (spray & pray) & pulled away cause a racer was wiping the rail. From a photo point of view, my dof & focus point was off, but from the series I got a few unforgettable shots. So should I have tossed them because of IQ? Nah.
In case we haven't noticed, the tolerance for poor quality images is growing, much to the consternation of the pros. Ipod shots & vids being solicited by major networks (for free) have now become normal and are used in the justice system.
While I strive for technical excellence (rarely achieved), it's difficult if you're shooting from the hip in order to get a non posed picture.
Seems to me most of the criticism here is civil, constructive & supportive, but maybe we should be careful about being patronizing; that isn't constructive
BTW, I personally welcome criticism. Here is a quote from a pro that might support my contention
"Because of this there are bloopers and out of focus shots that get put on the vstations.
People arder tham and when we see they are out either on the screen or in the print and show the client, it's virtually impossible to change their minds on the pic even with offering them to choose a better image and keep the one they ordered as well. 95% of the time they will say the image is fine and they don't want anotehr one but thanks anyway.
I really hate that and give my son a lecture over it every time but you can't not give the client the pic they want once they have seen it.
By the same token, I have lost count of the times i thought I had a killer shot or even sequence of pics and the client will knock them back because of some seemingly unimportant thing ( to me) .
I can have little ponys jumping over what seems like a tall building or bigger horses looking like they are about to clear the moon and the clients will say, " Oh, don't like that one!" Shattered, when you ask why, they will tell you something like the ears aren't turned even or the tail isn't right or the browband is looking a little crooked....
You stand there and think " What in the hell can I possibly do about that?" knowing you got great angle, peak action, you ( fluked) perfect lighting....
I have fast learned that what shooters look at and what clients look at are in no way related.
On the weekend I was asked by a parent to get some good shots of her horse in the barrel racing. While looking for the daughter I clicked a pic to show the parent to make sure I had the right rider. She was just standing there waiting to be let into the ring.
The girl was a good fast rider and I got 19 shots of her after I did edit a few with dirt flying and the horsel looking like it was going like hell as it rounded the barrels etc. I was pleased with what I got and was thankful the girl wasn't one of the begginers that just trotted round with no real action at all.
The mother came over the next day looked at the shots and told me how pleased she was with them and thanked me profusely. She ordered an insert photo. Thinking this would be good, I had to check with her twice that the amin pic she wanted was the one with teh girl standing there motionless waiting to be let into the ring!!!
She said she loved them all but there was something special about that pic and I captured her daughter so well and what a really great photographer I was to understand the emotion like that.
I wish I understood the emotion of the pic as well. God knows I looked it at long enough till she came back to collect her print trying to see what she did in it! "
Amen to that!! I am glad that I don't try to sell my shots to individual clients. At least the photoeditors at the major media outlets know a good shot from a bad one. We've all seen these horribly over-saturated and over-sharpened shots that many non-shooters love. I would hate to be in the business of catering to this clientele.
To me, there are many ways for a photo to be great. I tend to look less at the technical aspects of it than the compositional and situational aspects. I have put up plenty of technically flawed shots that capture good moments (though mostly of my kids' sports teams) and carry little guilt as a byproduct. (OTOH I don't charge for these!) And conversely, I rarely put up a shot based solely on its technical merit. At the end of the day, I like the artistry of photography and believe there are many ways to create an artistically pleasing shot.
Lets just call it my enthusiasm for the betterment of photos being shown exceeded my civility. I do believe that most people walk away too early from shots that could have been great, but it's not my place to foist my opinions on other people.
Be well and keep that shutter clicking.
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
For the last past yr, I have taken an interest in street photography. I like seeing the unexpected, the reciprocal spontaneity sometimes we get or otherwise, and the enormous varieties of subject it can present to us. It taught me anticipation is one of the key factor to good street shots and I also have a fair share amount, if not more, failures and rejects that doesn't fall well in the category of a good street image.
I like the idiom "I have fast learned that what shooters look at and what clients look at are in no way related" which more so apply to wedding shoots.
Now back to my image. Would I have taken better? In what way will it be better? Judging by the situation and on site circumstances, I'm satisfied that it turned out as it is. I reckoned if I were just a mere second off, it could be an entire different image all together, something like hands all over and blur all over as well. There is no second chance. No re-enactment. For this case, I'm the client as well.
Cheers guys.
There's a lot of leeway for technical sloppiness in street as long as there's a strong story. But stories require plots and, in my view, plots for pictures comes in a large part through composition. This is where street becomes hard. One of the essential core skills is the ability to compose quickly and instinctively. You have to be constantly looking and seeing at the focal length and within the DOF you're set up to shoot.
Still, it's a good shot with a built in reminder to practice practice practice.
Thanks for chiming in.
Not to give any excused, this shot was taken at ISO 800 and I was using my GH-1 and the camera was struggling with its auto focus as I was adjusting my zoom (14-140) in anticipation. When the moment came, I just have to click because I know too well my camera will take awhile to refocus again (unlike those D3 or something). This another aspect that I have lived within the camera means.
And yes, I'm kicking my bum for bad framimg, but well........
Actually I wouldn't want to mention this but now I like to backtrack your previous message. This is not a landscape shot. It is not that kind of shot as and when you like to shoot as if its there for your taking. Would you have taken the same shot? Ask yourself firstly:
1)Are you at right place, right time?
2)would you able to see creatively and anticipate this will happen?
3)This was shot overhead with extended hand over the wall parapet. Do you have a flip LCD to frame it?
If I read you correctly, you are against posting pic that fall short of standard. You said its a nice shot but against posting. I have to thank you for the compliment but that is not the main purpose of me posting. It's more of sharing. I'd give myself perhaps 7/10 for this image. By your criterion, many people will fall short of the std. set forth by you and you'd have deprived many from posting because you gonna discourage them.
I wouldn't have been so critical in framing next time if I don't post. So its a good wake up call. Understanding there is always a need for posting because there are others in the process of learning.
I could have easily been standing right beside you and not seen the same shot. I could have been in your exact position, seen the shot and not taken it because I didn't feel like it. I could have used my little NEX (with the flip up LCD) and carefully composed the whole thing. Or more likely, I would have shot blind, something else I practice, with the big boy (hopefully I'd have had the wide lens on) and see what I got when I got home.
I agree that this forum should be about learning as much as sharing. Sharing of images, hints, experiences and techniques. We can all improve.
I can only speak for myself in terms of what standards I hold myself to. If I'm shooting in a way that I'm familiar with then yes, I have a fairly high standard for which images I'd share. But as I noted in my most recent thread, I tend to experiment sometimes and I don't really know what's going to work or not. I like trying new things and sharing for the heck of it as well.
I'll go back to being a wall flower now... :encore