Critique me!

[PhilippeFrance]

Is really wonderfull this work, full of magic !

 

[Bill Burk]

Pros, experts, make their savant images look like candids. That's the whole beauty of it. Amateurs like the images and try to replicate blindly.

I think the images are ok but worlds away from what you thought you were shooting.

I don't like secret organizations (although I am a Turtle if you ask), though I can show a savant image that looks like a candid. I believe everyone is somewhere along what my friend Leon Olguin calls an artists continuum. Sure there are beginners and there are greats, but in between there are all kinds of good artists you can appreciate for who they are and where they happen to be.

NB23, I look up to you. But you did not give enough of yourself in this critique thread. Please explain more fully what you mean. It may help me understand where you are coming from if you tell us what you think EASmithV thought he was doing, and how far off you think he was from that aim.

Your work has consistency that you make look easy. But you occasionally ask your viewers to take imperfections as is. Flaws are part of your work's success. So I would think you would celebrate that in others' work.

I would say that about EASmithV's second shot, the girl with soft hair. The imperfections make that shot worth revisiting.

Using 4x5 to shoot weddings is not as easy as shooting other formats. I've done one for fun, and for the day where I exposed 24 frames and got 18 negatives (because one set went in the stop bath first instead of developer)... You have to just accept that editing will not be the hardest part of making a show... It's more like salvage.

EASmithV's bride and bridesmaid is such a shot. I'm very happy to see the creek and path.

 

[EASmithV]

Thanks for all responses, except perhaps the overly vague ones.

Yes, If I thought the images were perfect, I wouldn't have asked for critique.
I shoot large format for the look because I like the rendering of the lens, and sometimes minor cleanliness details are secondary. I haven't really had an issue with that in the past, but if they are really that distracting i'll keep it in mind for the future.

I think the images are ok but worlds away from what you thought you were shooting.

What do you think I thought I was shooting? Is it because I mentioned submitting them to that photovogue site that brought on this volatility, or do you talk to everyone like that? I merely submitted them out of curiosity to see what happened, it's not like I'm trying to pass myself off as some high fashion photographer...

I think the best shot is number 3, but from a photographic technical point of view, all three shots could be improved with the use of a reflector.

Definately something i'm going to start bringing in the future.

 

[blansky]

I really liked these three images, so I submitted them to that photovogue website for the hell of it. Needless to say, they were not approved, but I did not recieve any feedback from the editors.

I was wondering if you all could take a look and let me know what you think, and ways in which I could have improved.

All photos are handheld LF with a Graflex of some sort.

View attachment 111573 View attachment 111574 View attachment 111575

Firstly, I didn't know of the place you submitted these pictures to so I went on their site and looked around and it looks Vogue-ish which is a rather avant garde, too cool for school type place, which your pictures don't rise to the level of. Now that's not saying your pictures aren't good, its just saying that they aren't enough in the genre that they are impressed by.

I have no idea of your competence level in photography so don't want to insult you but I'll give you my impression of your pictures and explain why they're not cool enough for Vogue. But you have to understand that photography has many genres and each of those genres have parameters and rules, and you have to ascertain where you naturally fit in, and where you wish to fit in and perhaps even why that area excites you. To begin with your work is not edgy enough. It's "nice", slightly common, and a bit "portrait-ey" for the too cool for school aesthetic.

Some of this stuff is hard to wrap your head around, as it was for me years ago when I tried doing some fashion stuff and submit it to an agency. The reply was always, "your look is too commercial". I had no fucking idea what that meant and they seemed unable to explain it. And it took me a long time and years or therapy to figure it out. My schtick or natural inclination in photographing people is to try to make them look good, which comes from not enough breast feeding or too much ( is that even possible), or something, but naturally, I'm not edgy, or cool enough. In the world of avant garde or high fashion, the subject is not the subject. The subject is more as a prop for the subject or to give a hint at the subject.

In portrait photography the subject is the subject, in photojournalism, the people who look like they are the subject are often just a means to get to the subject. In fashion the clothes are the subject, and the people are the things the clothes hang off of. The people, who they are, (not counting celebrity models) are not important. In the pictures in the Vogue site, the people are not the subject, as much as they are props to convey something else, much like photojournalism. It's sort of like the photographer saying to the model, "I don't care about you, I care about what I'm trying to say. You are just the means to say it."

So you as a photographer have to decide where in the broad spectrum of photography you wish to reside. Are you a story teller, are you someone who wants to make the subject look good/better, are you both? OR does the subject really interest you at all. This gets confusing because the dividing line between these genres sometimes is close, sometimes it gets blurred but a way to try to nail it down is to figure out who is paying for the pictures. If its the subject, then you have a set of parameters there, if it's an advertising agency, then there are parameters there, if its a magazine or publication there are parameters there.

So lets start with your pictures and I don't want to insult anybody so this is just clinical:

First picture:

Overall the picture is interesting in how you balanced the twinkling lights with the circles on her dress and there is a certain interest in what is going on here, what is she looking at, where is she. The problems arise in that she is not overly attractive, and certainly at this angle. And nobody looks good with their hair like this. Certainly not edgy material, not really portrait material because that angle of the face is not attractive usually, so it's rather photojournalistic. But not rising to a very high level.

Second Picture:

This is kind of a run of the mill "outstanding in her field" type of picture. Not vogue material, not portrait material, but it does have a certain arty flair, and the light leak adds a certain artyness to the picture since artyness is often a style over substance affair anyway. The antique camera, scratched neg, Holga, alt process type of thing. People often love this stuff not necessarily for the subject matter but more for the "process" of it all. I'm not a fan of the dress because the top part draws too much attention, as in "look at my boobs" rather than look at my face or the fact that I'm standing in this field in the wind. But like I say it has a certain arty flair to it.

Third Picture:

I like this picture a lot, the bitchy looking model, the cigarette, the location all work on a lot of levels. Add that to the fact that she is attractive, you want to look up her dress, and she wants you to look up her dress too. You can look but you can't touch. So it's a rather taunting sexy pictures that is more in the Vogue-ish vein and definitely not in the portrait vein although probably not quite at the Vogue-ish level. The problem comes when you submit 3 pictures like this to someone, and only one fits the bill, is that they think it's a fluke, or that you lucked out. If you'd done 3 like this, you may have had a shot. The other thing you have to remember, life isn't fair, and people generally want to look at attractive looking people, so if you're selling to someone other than the subject, your models need to be attractive, unless you want them ugly. But they can't be "ordinary". We are voyeurs, we don't want ordinary.

So the moral to the story, find your niche, and push towards that. If you want to be a too cool for school photographer and impress Vogue-ish people you have to do edgy stuff with edgy people. If you want to shoot weddings, you need to please ordinary people. Nothing wrong with either choice, but you need to define it.

 

[frank]

I've benefitted from reading your post Blansky, thank you!

 

[Photo Engineer]

I enjoyed your comments Blansky. Going back to mine, I commented mainly on the clothing, assuming they would be of interest to a Vogueish destination. My comments still hold. The drape of the clothes is wrong. The skirt is crooked and appears wrinkled in #2 and in #3 the dress is just sloppy. And in #1, you don't see clothes, you see a part of a person and lights.

If I were the editor of Vogue, I would not be attracted to these images.

So, put yourself into the mind of the mag. editor as much as you can to see what he/she might want.

If you go the news route, you need drama, if you go Vogue you need glamor.

PE

 

[pbromaghin]

Great post, Blansky. You have an admirable ability to describe arty concepts in a clear and down-to-earth way.

 

[blansky]

I enjoyed your comments Blansky. Going back to mine, I commented mainly on the clothing, assuming they would be of interest to a Vogueish destination. My comments still hold. The drape of the clothes is wrong. The skirt is crooked and appears wrinkled in #2 and in #3 the dress is just sloppy. And in #1, you don't see clothes, you see a part of a person and lights.

If I were the editor of Vogue, I would not be attracted to these images.

So, put yourself into the mind of the mag. editor as much as you can to see what he/she might want.

If you go the news route, you need drama, if you go Vogue you need glamor.

PE

Thanks to you and Frank. I purposely didn't read any one else's comments because I didn't want to taint/influence mine, but I'll go back and do that.

It's so hard for a starting out photographer to 1, try to define what the genres of photography are and where they fit in, and 2, even have access to movers and shakers in certain genres. Fashion for instance is pretty much tied to very large cities, like LA, NY, London, Milan, so that's a tough nut to crack if you live somewhere else. Even by your definition of drama and glamor, it's often hard for photographers to know what that really means and how to attain that particular look.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Blansky, you are right. That is why I prefer action (or what some call unusual) photos or children or nature. And it is why only my unusual action photos have been published or have won prizes. They are out of the ordinary. The other categories only seem to interest me and my friends. I've posted some in all 3 categories.

PE

 

[kb3lms]

My $0.02 fwiw because I don't know much about this. They are not edgy at all but not all bad either. If I could do so well, however, then I'd ask for critique, too. (Which is why I have not as of yet.) That being said,

1) I like the tonality but I would like to see her eyes and more of her expression. To me, the dress is a distraction rather than adding to the image. I'm lead to wonder what she might be looking at but cannot see enough of her face to get more of the story. Is she happy, wondering, enthralled or what? The hair is a little "tight" but on the other hand is a sort of hairstyle that I see all the time. This gives a quality that this girl could be anyone so she isn't special but, then again, who is she? Leaving me to wonder who she is and what is she thinking would be OK if I could see a little more of the story.

2) The dress is all wrong and definitely exaggerates her bust line in an image that calls for anything but. There is something about the lighting that makes me come back to it, though.

3) Not my thing at all. I cannot see her eyes, the cigarette puts me off and the dress doesn't sit well on her frame. I find the thing going on with the dress at her underarm very distracting. The framing is good and most of the tonality is good but I also find the brightness of her left shoulder distracting. Between that and the dress thing, I keep being drawn to that point which is not what the picture would be about. In this picture I also am not left wondering what she is looking at or thinking. Nothing, on both.

Keep at it though. As I said above, if I could put out anything this good I'd fling it out here for critique, too.

-- Jason

 

[Jim Moore]

I've benefitted from reading your post Blansky, thank you!

+1 Excellent post...

 

[blansky]

My $0.02 fwiw because I don't know much about this. They are not edgy at all but not all bad either. If I could do so well, however, then I'd ask for critique, too. (Which is why I have not as of yet.) That being said,

1) I like the tonality but I would like to see her eyes and more of her expression. To me, the dress is a distraction rather than adding to the image. I'm lead to wonder what she might be looking at but cannot see enough of her face to get more of the story. Is she happy, wondering, enthralled or what? The hair is a little "tight" but on the other hand is a sort of hairstyle that I see all the time. This gives a quality that this girl could be anyone so she isn't special but, then again, who is she? Leaving me to wonder who she is and what is she thinking would be OK if I could see a little more of the story.

2) The dress is all wrong and definitely exaggerates her bust line in an image that calls for anything but. There is something about the lighting that makes me come back to it, though.

3) Not my thing at all. I cannot see her eyes, the cigarette puts me off and the dress doesn't sit well on her frame. I find the thing going on with the dress at her underarm very distracting. The framing is good and most of the tonality is good but I also find the brightness of her left shoulder distracting. Between that and the dress thing, I keep being drawn to that point which is not what the picture would be about. In this picture I also am not left wondering what she is looking at or thinking. Nothing, on both.

Keep at it though. As I said above, if I could put out anything this good I'd fling it out here for critique, too.

-- Jason

Jason, what I would argue about your #3 is that you are using portrait rules in a picture that is not a portrait per se. Or at least not a "portrait" for the subject to give to her mother. You are wishing for flattering when the author is trying for something else a bit more edgy. You're trying for girl next door pretty, and he is attempting something darker. All the things you don't really like may actually be things that enhance the picture.

It's sort of like my thread on "what is a portrait", and my post in this thread. A picture of a person is not necessarily a portrait. And when we look at pictures of people we need to try to establish, what were they trying to do, and not necessarily, do I like it as a nice portrait.

If you look at the so called Hollywood "Glamour" by Hurrell and Bull and others you will find horrible hatchet lighting and nasty shadow from using hot lights. And often we forgive that stuff because of the love the actor/actress and the overall feel of the picture. There is a lot of blown out highlights and other things but these are not pictures for mom. They are publicity shots for movies so we accept the "character" of them.

And we also have to accept the character of other pictures as being something other than a portrait.

 

[removed account4]

It's sort of like my thread on "what is a portrait", and my post in this thread. A picture of a person is not necessarily a portrait.

damn, you said it !

 

[Bill Burk]

.. photography has many genres and each of those genres have parameters and rules, and you have to ascertain where you naturally fit in, and where you wish to fit in and perhaps even why that area excites you. ...

This is a great thought for all of us to consider...

 

[Scotto]

I'll give another uneducated opinion, that echoes what has already been said but you might find useful if you weigh comments based on quantity. Keep in mind that I'm a shit photographer and had never heard of photovogue until reading your post.

1. It's interesting enough to pique my interest. I look deeper, I don't find enough contextual elements to find a satisfying story, and I don't seen enough of her face for the picture to be satisfying as a portrait.

2. I think I see what you were going for here. The light leak is fine. It seems spoiled by the bright, large breast sucking attention away and her arm being so much brighter than her face which is not evenly lit. A dress that has less contrast might also improve the picture.

3. My favorite of the 3, but as a few have said her head is small compared to her legs. It's about the same width as her calf. My guess is this is down to a wide-ish lens + low perspective. I hate to point to gear, but I like the composition and I don't think the background is too busy as others have written.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'll give another uneducated opinion, that echoes what has already been said but you might find useful if you weigh comments based on quantity. Keep in mind that I'm a shit photographer and had never heard of photovogue until reading your post.

1. It's interesting enough to pique my interest. I look deeper, I don't find enough contextual elements to find a satisfying story, and I don't seen enough of her face for the picture to be satisfying as a portrait.

2. I think I see what you were going for here. The light leak is fine. It seems spoiled by the bright, large breast sucking attention away and her arm being so much brighter than her face which is not evenly lit. A dress that has less contrast might also improve the picture.

3. My favorite of the 3, but as a few have said her head is small compared to her legs. It's about the same width as her calf. My guess is this is down to a wide-ish lens + low perspective. I hate to point to gear, but I like the composition and I don't think the background is too busy as others have written.

Welcome to APUG

 

[gone]

I doubt that it takes balls to say something rude, or something like that. Just ignorance, most probably.

I've never asked for comments on my photos, as it's a personal thing. I mean, who cares what someone else thinks, right? As long as you're happy. We all know the idiotic comments people said about Elvis (better go back to driving a truck, son), and there's a lot more where those came from.

To me, the hardest part is critiquing your own stuff. You have to be ruthless. Pretty good is essentially the same as pretty bad. Edit, edit, edit. It either knocks your socks off or it don't, and that ain't that easy to do. I hope this doesn't come across wrong, but if we can't figure out what's wrong w/ our own work, it's because we're either not far enough along to know, or we're in the wrong field. What I DO like is comments from people who know their stuff. That's the people we could use to help us see what we're sometimes too close to see ourselves.

40 years ago or so, I was working on a large painting of a nude that was taken from imagination. A fellow painter came over, someone much younger than I, but someone that was very good. As soon as he stepped into the studio he said "her feet are too small". And he was right, they were. It's a very common problem, initially. Feet are too small, the hands look terrible. A comment like that, from someone that understands the scene, that's a gift. If it had come from someone that knew as little as I did at the time, it would have been just wasted breath. So you have to consider the source. Can you imagine Walker Evans going outside his studio to ask the passers by, "what do you think?" He knew.