Re: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
In a message dated 8/13/2005 10:39:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Only a couple more to go and I'll be back to posting just one a week: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/30.htm Comments critique always appreciated. enjoy Godfrey This is the one I like of the 3-4 shown in this thread. Woman on bench. She looks really tuckered out. And I like the cane next to her being at the same angle she is. Nice shot. Marnie aka Doe
Re: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:12 PM, Markus Maurer wrote: I both don't understand your point of view and couldn't agree with it if I did. I understand that you disagree anyway, even if you do not understand my point, strange ;-) You don't seem to understand my sentence, Markus, or the rest of my response to you. I realize that English is not your first language, but you seem to want to be contradictory in conversations between us, revolving upon points of language usage. I see little point to continuing conversation in this way. However, I have a question or thrice: I did not qualify your PAW here but questioned whether *I* could judge the quality of the framing or composition when I only see a cropped photo ... How do you know when a photograph is cropped? What about it tells you that what you see isn't what was intended by the photographer and captured by the camera? Oh, you're going to say.. .well, it isn't 2:3 proportion or something like that. I can crop to any proportion I wish, including 2:3, and you would never know whether I did or not. What could knowing that a particular image isn't *exactly* what was in the viewfinder possibly have to do with your ability to judge whether what is presented is a pleasing composition? That just makes no sense at all. I regularly crop and alter the proportions of my photographs to suit the idea, the expression I had in mind when I made the exposure. I guess this means that you simply will never be able to judge whether you like one of my photographs, which pretty much makes your statement I like the photo too btw absent of meaning. Thank you for your comments. Godfrey
Re: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: RE: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG I used to think along the lines that you expressed, because I never did any darkroom work myself. Once I started scanning my own transparencies, my viewpoint started to change. When I got the *ist D then I found myself thinking that the end-image I produced is what truly counted. There is nothing like having a bad negative of a great scene in the enlarger to smarten a person up. William Robb Conversely, there is no experience quite like looking at a negative under the enlarger to see data that never made it to the print! Back in my wet darkroom days, I used to love the negatives more than the prints! That's a good way to check the job your printer is doing... but it's hard on the back to be bent over, looking up into the enlarger lens for negative detail... g I had to keep reminding myself I was doing that to determine precise focus, not to be enjoying it more than the final prints! keith whaley
Re: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
How true. A great observation. I learned far more from trying to fix the bad exposures than I ever did from recalling how I captured the good exposures. On Aug 16, 2005, at 11:32 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: RE: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG I used to think along the lines that you expressed, because I never did any darkroom work myself. Once I started scanning my own transparencies, my viewpoint started to change. When I got the *ist D then I found myself thinking that the end-image I produced is what truly counted. There is nothing like having a bad negative of a great scene in the enlarger to smarten a person up. William Robb
RE: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
Hi Godfrey my comments are below: You don't seem to understand my sentence, Markus, or the rest of my response to you. I realize that English is not your first language, but you seem to want to be contradictory in conversations between us, revolving upon points of language usage. don't take that to serious, after all it's about our hobby and the PDML only ;-) How do you know when a photograph is cropped? What about it tells you that what you see isn't what was intended by the photographer and captured by the camera? Oh, you're going to say.. .well, it isn't 2:3 proportion or something like that. exactly, the proportion told me here what happened. Otherwise I would have to simply ask you how you made your photograph. (That is the old fashioned - or maybe wrong - part in me, I'm just a bit more proud of a shot if I need not to crop it to look like I wanted it.) I can crop to any proportion I wish, including 2:3, and you would never know whether I did or not. What could knowing that a particular image isn't *exactly* what was in the viewfinder possibly have to do with your ability to judge whether what is presented is a pleasing composition? That just makes no sense at all. It' s not about pleasing, I never said that. It's about judging how well you mastered the situation regarding the composition and framing at the very moment, something people seem to admire HCB for example so much for. I regularly crop and alter the proportions of my photographs to suit the idea, the expression I had in mind when I made the exposure. I guess this means that you simply will never be able to judge whether you like one of my photographs, which pretty much makes your statement I like the photo too btw absent of meaning. Cropping or altering an image another way is one of the various possibilities to enhance an image like the darkroom techniques some here mentioned, I have no problem with that beside disliking sitting again on the computer for that ;-) Of course I can judge whether I *like* you photos Godfrey: The most important part of a photo for me is the main subject and the moment shown, here it would have been the woman and here pose. Second I can like he colors or lack of, the light, the shadows and more. I can like the idea that made you take that photo. All may be a part of the overall composition and is influenced by the framing and/or cropping, but I could well like one part of your photo enough to forget about the rest. My last bee shot is an example for me: I like the funny situation of two bees looking like having sex enough to go over the fact the photo is partly underexposed and that the composition and framing could have been better. I told you that for some of you PESO/PAW before: I did like the subject you showed and the b/w tones but not the cropping at all. I hope that clears things up a bit ;-) greetings Markus Godfrey
Re: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
On Aug 17, 2005, at 4:45 PM, Markus Maurer wrote: ... It's about judging how well you mastered the situation regarding the composition and framing at the very moment, something people seem to admire HCB for example so much for. This seems to say that you wish to judge the photographer and his/her way of making photographs, not the photograph itself. They are two completely separate things. The most important part of a photo for me is the main subject and the moment shown, here it would have been the woman and here pose. Second I can like he colors or lack of, the light, the shadows and more. I can like the idea that made you take that photo. All may be a part of the overall composition and is influenced by the framing and/or cropping, but I could well like one part of your photo enough to forget about the rest. I look at the scene depicted in a particular exposure and work my composition from that, both in the viewfinder when I'm taking the shot and in the lab/computer when I'm rendering it. I don't like to be constrained in photographic seeing by the format proportions of whatever particular camera I happen to be carrying, unless I do so consciously as an exercise of self-discipline. What is it about this composition that you like or don't like? Why is the fact that it is not the entire scene captured by the camera an issue for you? Judging people's pictures by an aesthetic notion of the way that they make them seems very odd to me. I told you that for some of you PESO/PAW before: I did like the subject you showed and the b/w tones but not the cropping at all. It would be helpful if you could articulate what about the particular framing in a picture is not to your liking, rather than that it might not be 100% full frame which is displeasing .. The latter consideration is simply not a factor of much significance to my photography. Godfrey
RE: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
This is an example of a street shot I like. In fact it's a wonderful, maybe even delicious example of a genre I usually dislike! Why? It stands on it's own. It requires no words or explanation. The visual image 'says it all'. Excellent job. Maybe this means I don't dislike the genre, but that I like good street photos in the same way I like good landscape photos. Thanks for sharing. BTW, I think this shot has some marketability. Definitely woorks as a greeting card. My 14-year old son just told me that he saw on a Jones Soda bottle, that they are looking for new BW images to put on their products. Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: PDML pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:37:55 -0700 Only a couple more to go and I'll be back to posting just one a week: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/30.htm Comments critique always appreciated. enjoy Godfrey
Re: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
Thanks Tom! It's good to hear such praise from someone who isn't usually inclined to street photography. In general, I find that street photography as a genre is better when it is presented in the context of several related photos. Standalone photos are much harder than, say, landscape or portraiture work since the whole reason for SP's existence (for me) is the expression of context in all the visual contradictions reality presents us with, visually. With landscape, it's usually isn't that scene beautiful? or aren't those clouds dramatic? that runs through my mind. With SP, the questions that arise when I look to evaluate a photo are usually more complex and more subtle. I like that, enjoy pondering those questions when a photograph inspires them, and yet it is vexing to define those questions and criteria in terms that aren't overly pretentious. fun fun fun :-) Godfrey On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Tom C wrote: This is an example of a street shot I like. In fact it's a wonderful, maybe even delicious example of a genre I usually dislike! Why? It stands on it's own. It requires no words or explanation. The visual image 'says it all'. Excellent job. Maybe this means I don't dislike the genre, but that I like good street photos in the same way I like good landscape photos. Thanks for sharing. BTW, I think this shot has some marketability. Definitely woorks as a greeting card. My 14-year old son just told me that he saw on a Jones Soda bottle, that they are looking for new BW images to put on their products. http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/30.htm
Re: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
I agree with Tom on this one. I think it's my favorite from among Godfrey's recent work. The subject is just delightful, and the framing and composition are excellent. Paul Thanks Tom! It's good to hear such praise from someone who isn't usually inclined to street photography. In general, I find that street photography as a genre is better when it is presented in the context of several related photos. Standalone photos are much harder than, say, landscape or portraiture work since the whole reason for SP's existence (for me) is the expression of context in all the visual contradictions reality presents us with, visually. With landscape, it's usually isn't that scene beautiful? or aren't those clouds dramatic? that runs through my mind. With SP, the questions that arise when I look to evaluate a photo are usually more complex and more subtle. I like that, enjoy pondering those questions when a photograph inspires them, and yet it is vexing to define those questions and criteria in terms that aren't overly pretentious. fun fun fun :-) Godfrey On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Tom C wrote: This is an example of a street shot I like. In fact it's a wonderful, maybe even delicious example of a genre I usually dislike! Why? It stands on it's own. It requires no words or explanation. The visual image 'says it all'. Excellent job. Maybe this means I don't dislike the genre, but that I like good street photos in the same way I like good landscape photos. Thanks for sharing. BTW, I think this shot has some marketability. Definitely woorks as a greeting card. My 14-year old son just told me that he saw on a Jones Soda bottle, that they are looking for new BW images to put on their products. http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/30.htm
RE: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
Hi Paul I could not judge the quality of the framing or composition on a cropped photo myself, only on the full unaltered version taken - the negative . It's too easy to correct things like that later on the computer for me. I like the photo too btw. Maybe I am just old fashioned here :-) greetings Markus I agree with Tom on this one. I think it's my favorite from among Godfrey's recent work. The subject is just delightful, and the framing and composition are excellent. Paul Thanks for sharing. BTW, I think this shot has some marketability. Definitely woorks as a greeting card. My 14-year old son just told me that he saw on a Jones Soda bottle, that they are looking for new BW images to put on their products. http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/30.htm
Re: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
On Aug 16, 2005, at 3:20 PM, Markus Maurer wrote: I could not judge the quality of the framing or composition on a cropped photo myself, only on the full unaltered version taken - the negative . It's too easy to correct things like that later on the computer for me. I like the photo too btw. Maybe I am just old fashioned here :-) I both don't understand your point of view and couldn't agree with it if I did. This has nothing to do with whether or not you liked the photograph I presented. One judges a photograph on the basis of what the photographer presents as the finished work, not what might have been recorded by the camera. The camera, and the negative, are merely means to the end, which is the photograph. A negative is not a photograph. Whether one makes a photograph out of a negative without cropping or with cropping has no bearing on whether the photograph presented is good or bad. How many photographic shows have you been to where the photographer puts a negative up for judging? To say that you could not judge the quality of the framing or composition on a cropped photo is ludicrous. Godfrey
RE: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
Hi Markus, I respectfully disagree with your first statement. I just read Gofrey's response and was in the process of writing something similar. The image you looked at and saw was *the photo*. When cropping or anything else occurred is irrelevant. The question is Do you like the image you viewed? You can make judgements as to whether you like the composition, etc., of that image. Correcting things on the computer is no different than altering things in a darkroom, or cropping a final print. So whether the photographer decided to crop in-camera by stepping a foot closer to the subject, or decided to crop afterwards on the computer, does not matter. One should try not to be locked into the mindset that the perfect image must be captured at the time the shutter is released. Certainly do your best to make that the case, as that is the starting point, but remember that there is more to photography than just pressing the shutter release. What's to say that one cannot change one's mind and prefer a second composition better and achieve it through cropping after the fact? That's part of being human and there's nothing inferior or invalid about the resulting image. I used to think along the lines that you expressed, because I never did any darkroom work myself. Once I started scanning my own transparencies, my viewpoint started to change. When I got the *ist D then I found myself thinking that the end-image I produced is what truly counted. Tom C. From: Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:20:03 +0200 Hi Paul I could not judge the quality of the framing or composition on a cropped photo myself, only on the full unaltered version taken - the negative . It's too easy to correct things like that later on the computer for me. I like the photo too btw. Maybe I am just old fashioned here :-) greetings Markus I agree with Tom on this one. I think it's my favorite from among Godfrey's recent work. The subject is just delightful, and the framing and composition are excellent. Paul Thanks for sharing. BTW, I think this shot has some marketability. Definitely woorks as a greeting card. My 14-year old son just told me that he saw on a Jones Soda bottle, that they are looking for new BW images to put on their products. http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/30.htm
Re: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
On Aug 16, 2005, at 4:58 PM, Tom C wrote: The question is Do you like the image you viewed? You can make judgements as to whether you like the composition, etc., of that image. Exactly. Nothing else is important. The image you view IS the photograph. Godfrey
Re: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: RE: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG I used to think along the lines that you expressed, because I never did any darkroom work myself. Once I started scanning my own transparencies, my viewpoint started to change. When I got the *ist D then I found myself thinking that the end-image I produced is what truly counted. There is nothing like having a bad negative of a great scene in the enlarger to smarten a person up. William Robb
RE: PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
Hi Godfrey my comments are below: I both don't understand your point of view and couldn't agree with it if I did. I understand that you disagree anyway, even if you do not understand my point, strange ;-) One judges a photograph on the basis of what the photographer presents as the finished work, not what might have been recorded by the camera. I don't care what one does Godfrey I have my own will. A negative is not a photograph. Whether one makes a photograph out of a negative without cropping or with cropping has no bearing on whether the photograph presented is good or bad. How many photographic shows have you been to where the photographer puts a negative up for judging? I did not qualify your PAW here but questioned whether *I* could judge the quality of the framing or composition when I only see a cropped photo, somebody called that good photographers eye lately in a compliment to Juan. To say that you could not judge the quality of the framing or composition on a cropped photo is ludicrous. Godfrey Please Remember that I said *I can not*, I see now that *you* can and that's fine for me... greetings Markus
PAW: People Portraits #30 - GDG
Only a couple more to go and I'll be back to posting just one a week: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/30.htm Comments critique always appreciated. enjoy Godfrey
