Saturday - Music in the Park

Earache

lensmole

Is that a snake coiled around an instrument in the third image? I really like the second one with the detail of the tattered jeans and other elements. Nice exposure!

Earache

Thanks lensmole, I had to use the adjustment brush quite a bit in #2 to balance sun and shade.
Yes, the instrument is a didgeridoo (first attributed to indigenous Australians 1500 yrs. ago) and this one has the carved snake for decoration.
I would have liked to get the entire didgeridoo in the frame (it's very long), but in this composition, I wanted to emphasize his face.

Seefutlung

I love the concept of multiple solo musicians in one park. You gotta take a lot of singles with you. You don't see many tubas in the park. Doesn't anybody play string instruments in San Diego? I really like you images ... but, (the big but) ... if it was I (I know these are yours) ... I would crop tighter. I like tight. (Tight is a cheap and lazy way to minimize distractions.)

#1- I'd crop behind the ear to emphasize the reflection. That is a great reflection and a serious eye to capture said reflection. I might even crop on the square-ish to zoom in on that wonderfully seen and captured reflection.
#2- Okay, a bit of a nit, I find the image too balanced ... to symmetrical, too much weight evenly distributed between case and musician. My cream-cheese brain flips between what is the subject ... what is the principle story line, case or musician? This is a compositional remark, not a post remark.
#3- Same as #1, crop of tightness and to minimise distractions. I'd get rid of the frame supporting the shade on the left. It doesn't add anything to the image and the brightly reflecting metal diverts my eyes. I love the hand and the exposure/post-processing revealing super detail on the hand and the eyes. Good job.

Gary

Earache

Thanks so much Gary for taking a look at these, and the comments and suggestions - always very appreciated!

I took a look at your cropping suggestions and I agree in #1 a tighter, square crop will feature the reflection more... and you're right, that is what caught my eye to begin with.
My original crop includes the longer reflection, view of the tuba (context), and the textured band, all of which held interest for me.
The young man did have a stringed instrument also - a steel guitar - and he would alternate... bless him for trying, but he was not very skilled at either.

In #2 the case is most definitely part of the story for me - although, not all buskers solicit donations... so, for me, the light pole and the flag sticker had to stay.
I have a cropping philosophy to maintain standard ratios whenever possible... it's kind of a throw-back habit to the days when we did not have the luxury of infinite cropping choices.
I find it challenging, either in-camera or post, to try and create the most pleasing composition while maintaining ratios. Sometimes though, you do just have to whack 'em!
I always try to evaluate frame elements, and weigh the positive and negative trade-offs when trying to maintain cropping ratios - especially when cutting-off any object in-frame.

On #3, a tighter crop started to feel cramped to me, and that "standard ratio" reflex started to kick in... I promise to seek treatment (grin).
Here's a pull-back to show how cluttered and ugly the wider-view was, and why I felt like I could not include the entire didgeridoo.
His performance was entertaining and animated, as well as musical.





Yeah, there were not many stringed instruments out that day, but, there was a percussion and chanting section available, should an impromptu jam session breakout...
(and, of course, this is not a standard ratio - I wanted to include all the chant phrases on the banner)


Thanks again Gary for your skilled and thoughtful comments.

Seefutlung

Thanks for taking me comments as constructive. It is often difficult to suggest anything other than "nice". Question: Why do you restrict yourself to 'standard' ratios?

Gary

Earache

Seefutlung wrote: »

Thanks for taking me comments as constructive. It is often difficult to suggest anything other than "nice". Question: Why do you restrict yourself to 'standard' ratios?

Gary

If all we do is just compliment each other (for one thing, it gets boring) we miss the chance to exchange information about perception, technique, and results... I'm here to share, but learn in the process too.
But you're right, there's always a variation in people's ability to give and get C&C constructively.

My preference for standard ratios is by no means absolute, just a general preference based on the pleasing nature of ratios, old-school processing restricted to certain ratios,
composing for printing/framing, and an unfortunate tendency to always color between the lines, so to speak - though I am trying to loosen-up a little in my old-age.

Seefutlung

Assuming you're referencing paper ratios, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20 ... this is my long winded take ...

In my formative years, I was exposed to Henri Cartier-Bresson concept of printing the entire frame and beyond (ala the black borders). I adopted that concept and I shot with the intent of cropping/composting 100% in the camera. If the image needed cropping in the darkroom, (even straightening a horizon), the photo was dumped. Printing without cropping was probably the singularly the most significant tool/exercise/practice that improved my photography.

So ... printing FF (35mm and 120mm), I could never perfectly fit any image on a standard paper ratio. So I've never gave much currency to any ratios other than the format of the camera medium.

I took a decade plus off from photography for family. My passion for photography was reignited when I purchased a 20D back in 2005. I lost my former skill of 100% in-camera framing but I have made it a goal to get back to that level of expertise.

Gary

Richard

I agree with Gary that #1 should be cropped to emphasize the reflection. A square crop from the top looks good to me. I'd also raise the black point a bit to give it a little more contrast, which also brings out the reflection. The snake is pretty wild (as is its owner, I'd guess). Quite a productive walk, I'd say .

Earache

Seefutlung wrote: »

Assuming you're referencing paper ratios, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20 ... this is my long winded take ...

In my formative years, I was exposed to Henri Cartier-Bresson concept of printing the entire frame and beyond (ala the black borders). I adopted that concept and I shot with the intent of cropping/composting 100% in the camera. If the image needed cropping in the darkroom, (even straightening a horizon), the photo was dumped. Printing without cropping was probably the singularly the most significant tool/exercise/practice that improved my photography.

So ... printing FF (35mm and 120mm), I could never perfectly fit any image on a standard paper ratio. So I've never gave much currency to any ratios other than the format of the camera medium.

I took a decade plus off from photography for family. My passion for photography was reignited when I purchased a 20D back in 2005. I lost my former skill of 100% in-camera framing but I have made it a goal to get back to that level of expertise.

Gary

Thanks for sharing your experiences Gary... those early influences and training are indeed valuable...
Hopefully like riding a bike... imprinted for life.

Earache

Richard wrote: »

I agree with Gary that #1 should be cropped to emphasize the reflection. A square crop from the top looks good to me. I'd also raise the black point a bit to give it a little more contrast, which also brings out the reflection. The snake is pretty wild (as is its owner, I'd guess). Quite a productive walk, I'd say .

Yes, the didgeridoo player had an amplification system that included electronic effects - chours, echo, etc., so the sound was pretty exotic,
and his hand gestures and facial expressions made for a fun performance...

Thanks, you guys, for the cropping suggestion, and I do like the result a lot... some additional details in the reflection emerged...
including another, smaller reflection of the mouthpiece in what looks like a support for the mouthpiece tube - cool!
I increased blacks too, Richard.

black mamba

For my money, Eric, you B&W conversion work is outstanding. In fact, from my viewpoint, it's the best on the forum on a consistent basis. Darn good work.

Tom

Earache

black mamba wrote: »

For my money, Eric, you B&W conversion work is outstanding. In fact, from my viewpoint, it's the best on the forum on a consistent basis. Darn good work.

Tom

You are too kind Tom, but thank-you for your complement and ongoing support - always appreciated.
I love B&W, and it's nice to know when we get it right for a viewer's eye.

I can send a stamped envelope if you think money might be involved... :giggle

Thanks again buddy - hope you're having fun!