Thanks for your comments. I don't disagree with anything you say. I liked "Jennifer" better than my PAW choice, because for me it conveyed more emotion. I decided against it, due to the same reservations you had: OOF and the shadow.
I chose the PAW I did as I thought it was the best technical shot of the night. I know technique means nothing without emotion, but I was trying to be "objective and detached". Maybe I should just go with my gut feeling on these things, eh?
Another one I liked more that the PAW was Commitment:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2205007
but again, her face is a bit OOF, as she moved just a teeny bit back, just as I snapped. Still, I liked the moment.
But, it was a learning experience, and I'll get to shoot her in about a month, possibly with better lighting. I was pleased that as many turned out as did, and I was really happy with Neopan 1600 at 3200.
Odd thing is, when Jen and I were going through the proofs, she was picking favourites that were completely different than I picked. Some so blown out and blurry from both movement and poor focusing that I would have thrown them out. She said she "saw" something in them.
I'm thinking, "Geez, Jen, I'm the ~king~ of OOF and motion blur. I'm your Man!" (apologies to Leonard Cohen). <vbg>
thanks again, Shel, frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Paw #5 - Pirate Jenny in Concert Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:33:45 -0800
Hi Frank ...
So I finally get to see Pirate Jenny PAW. Good exposure! And the pics from your first concert experience are pretty good from what I've seen.
However, as "nice" as your PAW choice is, it is missing something. The expression on Jenny's face is a good one, but one we've seen so many, many times, even on album covers (which does not, IMO, immediately imply a good photo). It's a nice document but not a strong image, and even has a quality that can be marketed.
I'd also like to see some of these pics with the distracting elements reduced or removed. It's just a matter of burning down some small areas of the print.
Baron Wolman, the early Rolling Stone photographer, suggested that you look for peaks of action, emotion, and movement to give concert and stage photos more impact. The photo you titled Jennifer is, imho, a more emotional photo, it shows more emotion, although the shadow and less than perfect focus are a distraction. But it's that kind of peak you might want to try to catch. The first one, Pirate Jenny, also has more impact, and A Quiet Moment pushes my buttons more than your PAW choice.
Coincidentally, I was photographing George Stevens, Jr., a TV and movie director, at a little talk he gave at a local film festival this past Saturday. I was trying to follow my own suggestions, and those proffered by Baron. The light was awful, and there wasn't much to work with, but I tried to salvage something from the mess caused by poor lighting and poor vantage point. I used neopan 1600 (which looks quite nice in your photos, BTW), and am anxious to see the results. I used the M3 and 90mm Elmarit ...
I'm afraid I may have little to show that's good, but it was fun, and a good learning experience.
frank theriault wrote:
>
> This is the last time I'm going to do this, but it seems that Photo.net got
> back on late last night.
>
> It's been down for the better portion of 2 or more of the 3 days since I've
> posted. So, if you try to look now, with any luck, you'll be able to see
> it.
_________________________________________________________________
Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage. Multiple plans available. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/
