Image critique and display question.

[rwboyer]

First question - images - thoughts? Like/dislike? I like the feeling of curiosity - the joy - the discovery and observation is something as simple as a puddle.

Second - stand alone or group? Are any of these stand alone or do they NEED to be together. If so which ones?

Third - I always struggle with display of sequences - how do you do it? I figured the documentary / journalism forum would be the best place for this. Whenever I am shooting a small camera (roll film) I always end up with sequences. Am I just a bad editor? In any case I figured some of you have nailed the sequence/story presentation and display issue.

Leica M6 35mm summicron - Kodak Tri-X @ 320 Pyrocat HD 1+1+100

RB

 

[njkphoto]

I think somewhere in there could have been a strong standalone. I like the first one but would have liked to see more. Also the girl and the bike kinda collide in the frame. I would like to see this one shot horizontal maybe at a lower angle. I think it's a bit tight. The second image I would have shot it with a telephoto and blur the background more. Image four with the reflection is nice.

When shooting features and in this case this is a feature you always end up with similar photos for the most part because you are trying to get THE shot, that sets the story, mood of the photo. Maybe you have more photos that might work better?

 

[rwboyer]

Thanks for the feedback - as you know with this kind of thing it is hard to balance angle of view vs. background because you have No control over either during the limited time to get the shot.

RB

 

[ntenny]

To me, the third one is the winner, and it's a standalone. I don't get a strong sense of sequence out of these shots, personally---I think each of them individually is a good picture of that "discovery and observation" you mentioned.

I really liked the first one at first glance, and didn't notice the bicyclist, but now that it's been pointed out it bugs me. I still find it a really strong picture even with that compositional intrusion, though.

-NT

 

[brian steinberger]

My vote is for the 4th one. By far the best. I would crop just a small bit from the bottom. Great work.

 

[clayne]

When you're shooting children or animals it's a good idea to move down to their level. Shooting down from above solidifies the adult/child relationship and moves against the grain of presenting a child as their own person.

 

[rwboyer]

When you're shooting children or animals it's a good idea to move down to their level. Shooting down from above solidifies the adult/child relationship and moves against the grain of presenting a child as their own person.

Yea I know that and it is generally a reasonable idea but A) the background sucked B) The light sucked and C) compositionally I liked the reflections and shadow in the water so I went for the trade off in the last 4 shots posted - the first two are at her level.

RB

 

[clayne]

Yea I know that and it is generally a reasonable idea but A) the background sucked B) The light sucked and C) compositionally I liked the reflections and shadow in the water so I went for the trade off in the last 4 shots posted - the first two are at her level.

RB

In regards to the first two, I think you need to move a little bit lower to really be at her level. In fact, I'd almost move below her eye level. Alternatively you could flip the bill and shoot entirely above her, pointing down, and letting the shadow do it's work in the water. Just some things to consider. I don't usually think about this stuff at the time much.

If you don't have the light, the background is too busy, and can't really get the shot you want, then I'd just say forget it.

 

[rwboyer]

In regards to the first two, I think you need to move a little bit lower to really be at her level. In fact, I'd almost move below her eye level. Alternatively you could flip the bill and shoot entirely above her, pointing down, and letting the shadow do it's work in the water. Just some things to consider. I don't usually think about this stuff at the time much.

If you don't have the light, the background is too busy, and can't really get the shot you want, then I'd just say forget it.

I agree with you entirely when I am shooting commercial work but when things like this present themselves I rather just shoot and have the image. A mentality that I cannot seem to do with my MF gear only 35.

RB

 

[rwboyer]

In regards to the first two, I think you need to move a little bit lower to really be at her level. In fact, I'd almost move below her eye level. Alternatively you could flip the bill and shoot entirely above her, pointing down, and letting the shadow do it's work in the water. Just some things to consider. I don't usually think about this stuff at the time much.

If you don't have the light, the background is too busy, and can't really get the shot you want, then I'd just say forget it.

Ps. I did my damnedest to overcome light that I hated in these - sort of partly cloudy from right overhead - I hate it because it is sort of flat but from the wrong direction - looks like hell no matter what unless you actually can block it from the top have it coming from the sides or even right on.

RB

 

[lns]

I like 2, 3, 4 as a sequence. I'm not sure 2 is in focus, however.

As a note for future work, as a parent I would want at least one shot to show her face. As the others noted, crouching down and moving your location would accomplish that. An objectionable background can be blurred out with depth of field, or minimized by getting closer or moving your location. You need at least one adorable face shot.

If you're not her parent, or not presenting these to her parents, then I think 4 is the one that works as a stand-alone shot.

-Laura

 

[rwboyer]

I like 2, 3, 4 as a sequence. I'm not sure 2 is in focus, however.

As a note for future work, as a parent I would want at least one shot to show her face. As the others noted, crouching down and moving your location would accomplish that. An objectionable background can be blurred out with depth of field, or minimized by getting closer or moving your location. You need at least one adorable face shot.

If you're not her parent, or not presenting these to her parents, then I think 4 is the one that works as a stand-alone shot.

-Laura

Wholeheartedly agree:

If I was shooting a commercial advert and I was controlling the background, lighting, the kid was an actor, we had a few takes, etc, etc. (which I do for a daytime job)

If you take a look at the first shot that is the background - I could have opened up another stop maybe but that would not have change things - or I could switch to a longer lens - shots gone.

Seriously - I was not looking at all for technical critique of what was wrong with the images in a perfect world - I can figure that stuff out in a heartbeat (the whole sequence lasted about 40 seconds and I happened to have a 35mm f2 lens on my camera at the time)

I was looking for exactly this:

One: What creative ideas do you folks have for sequence display / presentation - something that I do not do often since I produce stand alone constructed work for the most part. I find this a mental block when I am doing grab shot kind of work and I like a couple of related images. (General question for these as well as other crap I do for personal enjoyment)

Two:
Specific to these images - does any kind of group display/presentation make any sense or should I just can that and go with a stand alone - if so which one?

RB