Pro-Life Generation

Quincy T

Shot the March for Life in D.C. I have several more, but was so excited about this one I had to post it.



Please critique, don't let me fall in love.

richardman

No holds barred? :-)

She's a cutie and you got her at a great moment so +++ there.

The white hat is distracting, so -1

Now a lot of street photogs are happy with "someone with an expression in focus," so if you are one of those, that's fine.

If you want to look into "deeper," then you have to ask, "what does a cute smiling little girl next to a Pro-Life sign" says? In other words, would the picture be less interesting if the sign is not there, or something else? The answer to this question is of course may be subjective.

Good catch regardless.

Quincy T

richardman wrote: »

No holds barred? :-)

She's a cutie and you got her at a great moment so +++ there.

The white hat is distracting, so -1

Now a lot of street photogs are happy with "someone with an expression in focus," so if you are one of those, that's fine.

If you want to look into "deeper," then you have to ask, "what does a cute smiling little girl next to a Pro-Life sign" says? In other words, would the picture be less interesting if the sign is not there, or something else? The answer to this question is of course may be subjective.

Good catch regardless.

This is why I ask for critique. I agree. The sign probably detracts more than it does add.

This was impulsive love. I will find you better images, richardman. I have over 700 from today. DIGITALLLLL.

I did finish my first roll of Tri-X out there, though.

DavidTO

The hat could be fixed with a little processing, and I think the sign is important for context.

TonyCooper

DavidTO wrote: »

The hat could be fixed with a little processing, and I think the sign is important for context.

I'm mixed on this. I don't see the photograph as particularly gripping.
Cute kid, but there's really not that much of an association of "pro-life"
and a child her age.

Without the sign, the image is just a shot of some people. The hat is
one of those things that is acceptable in "street" because we often
have good shots with an unattached body part blocking part of the
scene. It's the whiteness of the hat, not the hat, that jumps out.

A little doctoring in PS that leaves the hat (you can't crop it out and
leave much of a photo) less noticeable might work.

The real problem to me is that there are three elements - the sign,
the man's face, and the child - all bunched together and the rest
of the space adds nothing. Tighter crop?

The best thing about the post is that you are excited about it.
Keep excited about looking for these scenes and you'll end up
getting real keepers.

richardman

TonyCooper wrote: »

...

The best thing about the post is that you are excited about it.
Keep excited about looking for these scenes and you'll end up
getting real keepers.

+1, *like* :-)

Quincy T

Alright gents, here's another group of keepers. Ultra culled, Russ Lewis style.

1

2

3

4

Quincy T

Any thoughts on these other shots?

richardman

Quincy, they are good photos. Nothing wrong with them per se. You are well on your way.

Keep shooting.

torags

#1: Read the sign first (the political point of view) then look at whats possible from the practice.

It works for me & I think the best of the batch

Quincy T

TonyCooper wrote: »

The best thing about the post is that you are excited about it.
Keep excited about looking for these scenes and you'll end up
getting real keepers.

richardman wrote: »

Quincy, they are good photos. Nothing wrong with them per se. You are well on your way.

Keep shooting.

torags wrote: »

#1: Read the sign first (the political point of view) then look at whats possible from the practice.

It works for me & I think the best of the batch

Thanks gents, I really do appreciate the feedback. I cherish input from you all more than you know.

bdcolen

I'll be back later when I'm on a real keyboard, but I have a much different take on this: the first one is by far the best, and could run in most newspapers; it's straight-ahead photo journalism. The hat is easy to fix in Photoshop, and the sign, Dad, and little kud work perfectly together. Having covered many more of those annual marches than seems reasonable given the Constitutions exclusion of cruel and unusual punishment, I can attest to this image beautifully capturing a very typical element of the RvW demo.

Quincy T

bdcolen wrote: »

I'll be back later when I'm on a real keyboard, but I have a much different take on this: the first one is by far the best, and could run in most newspapers; it's straight-ahead photo journalism. The hat is easy to fix in Photoshop, and the sign, Dad, and little kud work perfectly together. Having covered many more of those annual marches than seems reasonable given the Constitutions exclusion of cruel and unusual punishment, I can attest to this image beautifully capturing a very typical element of the RvW demo.

Thanks for taking a look B.D. If you have time for something more elaborate, I'd appreciate it. I got "meh" feedback on that shot from a friend of mine, a photojournalist, who had actually once covered the event himself. So, I'm anxious to hear more from you on it, take that back to him, and see what he has to say.

I will say that it was a very different experience going back to the March as a photographer, and not a marcher. I got a fair share of coverage on the opposite side of the issue as well, but there were only a couple of keepers, and I only wanted to share my strongest images.

I was able to see much more, and experience more, being an objective documenter than I could when I went only with the intention of protesting.

I'm glad I was able to get out there and give it a try.

I wanted to stop and say hello to a couple of the obvious PJs there, but felt I'd disturb their work. I wouldn't want someone bugging me while I was trying to make a living I suppose.

Yaflyyadie

I have never done photo journalism, so I'm a stranger to this specialty and probably my opinion does not count at all.
But my eyes see it this way:
The white hat is the road that leads to the girl's face and then you see the sign and the rest of the composition including Dad's face too.
Nothing wrong with the picture other than, each one, will like to see it by their own learned and proven standards which is not bad or diminishing to the published product by Quincy T as it opens a dialog for better performance.
Sorry if I intruded.
By the way, I really like it.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Y.

Quincy T

Yaflyyadie wrote: »

I have never done photo journalism, so I'm a stranger to this specialty and probably my opinion does not count at all.
But my eyes see it this way:
The white hat is the road that leads to the girl's face and then you see the sign and the rest of the composition including Dad's face too.
Nothing wrong with the picture other than, each one, will like to see it by their own learned and proven standards which is not bad or diminishing to the published product by Quincy T as it opens a dialog for better performance.
Sorry if I intruded.
By the way, I really like it.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Y.

Thanks Yaf, it's true, we all bring our own bias to the pictures we view. I personally can't stand pictures of people's cats, obviously taken in their home, and then posted for critique on a website containing serious photographers. But, I try to look at each cat objectively. I hope people have the same patience for my images, which, while they are not cats, are still sophomoric and unrefined.

bdcolen

Again, fairly quick - But...I'm not saying this is a prize winner - but as a seen moment from the demonstration, it says a fair amount. Those demonstrations are always very child-heavy - take that for what you will. So having the cute kid, the sign, the Dad, captures that. Yes, the composition could be tighter - the empty space to the right is pretty much wasted. Now, would this be good as the single image to run with the story about the annual demo? No, absolutely not. There I'd want an overall shot, demonstrators with signs close in in the foreground, with either the Capitol dome or the Supreme Court building in the background. But with a shot like that, I'd be careful not to make the crowd look either too small, or too big - you want to show it for what it was.

As to bothering working PJs - I'd show a little discretion - don't interrupt someone who's shooting - but I would definitely approach people with press credentials and try to talk to them. You'd be surprised how many would be happy to share a few words, if not more. And it's a way to begin making contacts.

Oh, a last thought. I make a real point in my classes of explaining that there is no such thing as objectivity, but we have an obligation to be fair, and we owe our subjects honesty. Your situation is a really perfect example of what I'm talking about. Given that you have participated in this particular event, quite obviously you cannot approach it objectively. You have certain firmly held beliefs, and you carry them with you where ever you go. But you can be fair. Being aware of your bias - that's not a pejorative, it's a descriptive :-) - you need to approach the demo like a man from Mars. I am perfectly comfortable saying that I am on the other side of the debate, and was when I covered the demo year in and year out for the Wash Post in the 70s. But I never received a single complaint that my coverage of the event was in any way biased; I simply described what happened, explained what the demonstrators wanted, quoted speakers, and put it all in the context of the debate. And you can do the same photographically.

RSL

Thanks, BD. That was a whole course in photojournalism in three paragraphs.

Quincy T

Thanks again, B.D. Informative as always, and that takes work, so I appreciate that. Next time, I'll have the confidence to go over and say hello to one of the PJs, provided it's appropriate.

I'm going to continue prodding your brain, though. This is what happens when you are informative, hahaha.

So, you said

BD wrote:

There I'd want an overall shot, demonstrators with signs close in in the foreground, with either the Capitol dome or the Supreme Court building in the background. But with a shot like that, I'd be careful not to make the crowd look either too small, or too big - you want to show it for what it was.

How do you feel about the third shot in my second post containing more images? Personally, from what you're telling me here, the crowd is too small. On the other hand, they're packed in there like sardines, so that suggests a sizable number of people It contains all the other things you mentioned, though. What would make the image a winner, instead of being average? I know a winning image when I see it, and I understand some parts of how to get to that point. You need a great deal of impact and emotion, all in once frame. It needs to be good technically. So on and so forth. I know it's not all luck, so what do you think you would have done personally to take an image like this:

to the next level fundamentally at the moment you took the shot. I understand that's asking a lot, and if it's impossible to answer without saying "there is some chance involved", I fully understand. I expect that, in fact. I'm just looking for more ways to improve, and while I feel I'm getting a better eye for it, I want to know everything I can do to perform at a higher level.

richardman

Quincy, here's a trick - defocus your eyes so that the images look more like a blob to you. Now just look at the shapes and the light. Do they look good by that view? Slightly focusing more, are there faces, or signs, or something interesting jumping out at you?

For example, IN MY HUMBLE OPINIONS, in this last photo you pointed out, the mass of people is too indistinct, the umbrellas are just part of this big blob. It needs more separation. More.. something.

I think part of it is that these are good photos, but given the opportunities (lots of people matching), we know even better photo opportunities are available.

Keep shooting.

torags

Quin I like the Capital shot. In my anal opinion it should be in the center.

Not a knock just a stylistic difference (its a good shot)

Quincy T

torags wrote: »

Quin I like the Capital shot. In my anal opinion it should be in the center.

Not a knock just a stylistic difference (its a good shot)

Thank torags, I have no problem with differing composition opinions! I'm glad that I saw something that others would like. I stood in that spot for a little while, hoping to get something pretty interesting and of the shots I took, this is the best IMHO.

Moving Pictures

DavidTO wrote: »

The hat could be fixed with a little processing, and I think the sign is important for context.

Define "fix?" I saw that term a few times, with regard to the hat.

Maybe this is the newspaper editor side of me expressing itself, but an awful lot of what I see around here isn't what I'd consider photography - it's so processed as to be graphic illustration.

The original image shown at the start of this thread is a moment in the universe, something that can't be manufactured, battened down, and bow-tied in a studio. The world isn't perfect, and certainly people aren't - leave the image as it is.

bdcolen

Quincy T wrote: »

Thanks again, B.D. Informative as always, and that takes work, so I appreciate that. Next time, I'll have the confidence to go over and say hello to one of the PJs, provided it's appropriate.

I'm going to continue prodding your brain, though. This is what happens when you are informative, hahaha.

So, you said

How do you feel about the third shot in my second post containing more images? Personally, from what you're telling me here, the crowd is too small. On the other hand, they're packed in there like sardines, so that suggests a sizable number of people It contains all the other things you mentioned, though. What would make the image a winner, instead of being average? I know a winning image when I see it, and I understand some parts of how to get to that point. You need a great deal of impact and emotion, all in once frame. It needs to be good technically. So on and so forth. I know it's not all luck, so what do you think you would have done personally to take an image like this:

to the next level fundamentally at the moment you took the shot. I understand that's asking a lot, and if it's impossible to answer without saying "there is some chance involved", I fully understand. I expect that, in fact. I'm just looking for more ways to improve, and while I feel I'm getting a better eye for it, I want to know everything I can do to perform at a higher level.

This is closer, but what I would prefer to see would be close, wide shot, from in front of people - so we see faces and signs, with the Capitol in the background.

BTW - tiny personal story regarding 'bothering' working PJs. When, as a 17-year-old working without pay for a weekly in Westport, CT, I rode the train from Norwalk, CT to DC to cover The March On Washington - yes, THAT March on Washington, I noticed another photographer in the car I was riding with, and made a point of looking at the credentials hanging around his neck. It a photographer for the NYTimes, who did a lot of fantastic work for the Times Magazine. I almost had a stroke. One of my heroes. But I was too damn shy to approach him. What if I had? Would that contact and conversation ultimately have lead to my spending my newspaper career as a shooter, rather than as a writer? I'll never know. But what I do know is we shouldn't pass up those opportunities.

bfjr

Moving Pictures wrote: »

Define "fix?" I saw that term a few times, with regard to the hat.

Maybe this is the newspaper editor side of me expressing itself, but an awful lot of what I see around here isn't what I'd consider photography - it's so processed as to be graphic illustration.

The original image shown at the start of this thread is a moment in the universe, something that can't be manufactured, battened down, and bow-tied in a studio. The world isn't perfect, and certainly people aren't - leave the image as it is.

I like that.

DavidTO

Moving Pictures wrote: »

Define "fix?" I saw that term a few times, with regard to the hat.

Just a minor curves adjustment on that area. Burn it in, to use the film term. Make it less white, more grey. It wouldn't take much and it'd hardly be manipulating the image, IMO. It's also something that might be remedied depending on how the black and white conversion is made via a channel mixer. "As is" is so vague. If that were the case it'd be the color image out of the camera, right?

EDIT: I should add that I do like the image as it is. The comment was made about the hat, and I could see the point, and I thought that the fix is minor and easy to do, so why not? But leaving the image alone it's still a mighty fine image that I'd be proud of, myself.

TonyCooper

Quincy T wrote: »

How do you feel about the third shot in my second post containing more images? Personally, from what you're telling me here, the crowd is too small. On the other hand, they're packed in there like sardines, so that suggests a sizable number of people

You can't win, can you? One photograph was critiqued (by me and
by someone else) for having too much empty space, and this one is
critiqued for being too tight. This does miss a bit because it doesn't
give the impression of a real crowd. It's like you found a crowd by
cropping. I'd rather see this in landscape format with more of a crowd.

I'll forgive all, though, for the presence of the Capitol dome in the background.
Good choice of positioning. That says "where", the content says "what",
and the signs say "when".

If you don't have one, get a wife. If she's like mine, she'll "Wow!" over
every image, and then when you come here it won't bring you down so much.

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote: »

You can't win, can you? One photograph was critiqued (by me and
by someone else) for having too much empty space, and this one is
critiqued for being too tight. This does miss a bit because it doesn't
give the impression of a real crowd. It's like you found a crowd by
cropping. I'd rather see this in landscape format with more of a crowd.

I'll forgive all, though, for the presence of the Capitol dome in the background.
Good choice of positioning. That says "where", the content says "what",
and the signs say "when".

If you don't have one, get a wife. If she's like mine, she'll "Wow!" over
every image, and then when you come here it won't bring you down so much.

Yah, but if she's like mine she will have NO interest in any photo that does not contain one of her children - looking their absolute best - or one of our dogs. Anything else? Meh. As my daughter, an art school grad in photo who works in the leading classic photo gallery in NYC says, 'Forget it Dad - Mom just doesn't get photography. It's hopeless.'

Quincy T

TonyCooper wrote: »

You can't win, can you? One photograph was critiqued (by me and
by someone else) for having too much empty space, and this one is
critiqued for being too tight. This does miss a bit because it doesn't
give the impression of a real crowd. It's like you found a crowd by
cropping. I'd rather see this in landscape format with more of a crowd.

I'll forgive all, though, for the presence of the Capitol dome in the background.
Good choice of positioning. That says "where", the content says "what",
and the signs say "when".

If you don't have one, get a wife. If she's like mine, she'll "Wow!" over
every image, and then when you come here it won't bring you down so much.

My lovely wife is my biggest fan. It's hard for her to be critical, but she's developing an eye for it. She herself is an artist, albeit not professionally, but was an award winner throughout high school. She nearly went to Georgia to major in art at a Savannah school, but ended up becoming a Registered Dietitian instead.

--BREAK--

Alright. Last one. It has no Capitol, it has no faces, but there is something about this one that caught my eye. Probably the big sign. Here goes:

bdcolen

Quincy T wrote: »

Sorry, Quincy, but a definite "No." Was this the Montpelier, VT demonstration, or the Chicago demonstration, or...There is nothing here that says D.C. Also, it's a bit too overexposed.

Quincy T

bdcolen wrote: »

Quincy T wrote: »

Sorry, Quincy, but a definite "No." Was this the Montpelier, VT demonstration, or the Chicago demonstration, or...There is nothing here that says D.C. Also, it's a bit too overexposed.

I do not give up, but I am going to stop bothering you on this very same subject! Thanks for all of the feedback from everyone.

richardman

So how come all the close ups of single or few people are front on portrait style whereas the crowd people are all sideway or from the back?

Now imagine you do the front on with the crowd.... Walk into them. Don't be the crowd :-)