Thanks for your comments regarding the last image. Now if it pleases the jury could I get some feedback on the arrangement of elements in this panel? I'm trying to figure out why the foreground element is where it is (from an aesthetic perspective).

Merci beaucoup.

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 26, 2002

Answers

Hundreds of times better than the last one. I wish the girl was a little sharper - my eye is stolen by the sharpness of the man's jacket (a touch up job for PhotoShop?) . If this is not a successful photograph, it is certainly very close to being one.

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 26, 2002.

No Steve,

The sharpness of the man's jacket is a product of how thin the chrome was and probably my own ineptness in focusing with the 75 Summilux in VERY low light (Shot wide open). The focus was for the woman's face (facial line from the background) but hey, I've got +3 diopter on my dominant eye. So I'll have to practice some more.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 26, 2002.

Love the composition, hate the tungsten color-cast on your chrome...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 26, 2002.

Or isw it flourescent?

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 26, 2002.

John - What do you mean "No Steve"?

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 26, 2002.

Steve,

I was referring to your "touch up job in Photoshop" and the man's jacket. The scene was very heavy in yellow light as well and yellow tends to "bleed" into the contrast (my experience) so I don't know if a touchup in Photoshop could be done and still look natural. So... very little Photoshop here.

Cheers,

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 26, 2002.

Re the cast: You'd have to stretch the blue so far in photoshop that you'd introduce loads of noise, especially given that the blue channel of a scan normally holds most of the noise to start with. This sort of thing has to be tackled at source, alas -- use an optical filter, tungsten balanced film, or a digicam to allow less drastic corrections in photoshop. Or just surrender and shoot B&W in museums...

Re composition: see what you think if you trim the bottom and left so that the line of books extends right through the frame. A different meaning to the picture, perhaps, but interesting.

I like the general balance, the relative weight you've given to the exhibit and the groups of people.

-- Joel Benford (joel@joel-benford.co.uk), January 26, 2002.

John,

Here's 0.02 from someone with knowledge bordering on zero, so maybe it's worth 0.005.

First, thanks for being brave enough to bare your technique in front of this group. If nobody does this we would not learn anything. It would be good if your detractors were brave enough to put their images on this site, just so that we could see their photographic point. It's one thing to call someone's work sub-standard, but another thing to show examples of what's missing. So, bravo.

(2) Your previous photo of the girl at the AGO. If that picture had been in color it might have been awful, simply because sneakers are made in bright colors that don't match any clothing, and I'm not sure of the color scheme of her clothing, or the man's. Do you recall any of the other colors? So in this case B&W added something to the shot.

(3) I was wondering about the picture on this message. There is a distinct lack in the range of colors in the picture, mostly black and brown, apart from the yellow. Is there any way you could reprint this picture here in black and white, then we could benefit from seeing whether B&W is better in some situations? This could render the overall yellow into a non-issue.

Is printing B&W from color negatives a no-no?

Please correct me if I'm off here.

Thanks, just trying to learn myself.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), January 26, 2002.

John- Did the woman know you were taking this shot? Did she find out after the fact? Reason for asking is that I've wondered if the 75mm focal length gets you back far enough for clandestine work, or if the 90 might be better in such cases.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), January 26, 2002.

gallerys are fun to shoot in....



-- grant (g4lamos@yahoo.com), January 26, 2002.

Vikram:

To answer your question, the previous image WAS in color chrome originally with quite complementary colors but I felt that B&W was the right medium to use to get the abstract theme across so... desaturate function a la Photoshop.

Frank:

I don't want to indulge in equipment fetishes but the 75 served me handily. The shot was taken extreme low light (and difficult light sources with areas of high then low contrast) allowing me to get quite far from the subject in both cases while minimally cropping the chrome. I think in terms of saturation of colors and contrast I couldn't have done better than the 75 (with the extra speed above the 90 Cron). I don't have alot of experience with the 90s because I feel more comfortable "pre-visualizing" the image in the context of the 35, 50, and 75 coverage. If I learned with a 90 then I could probably reproduce these results with a 90: but I didn't. Ultimately its you who will have to make the committment (both financially AND more importantly timewise) to make the best of your equipment choices.

Cheers all,

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 26, 2002.

hi john,

much better than the first shot. nice composition and moment captured.

i see you have a thing for girls.

cheers

-- Joel (joel_low@pacific.net.sg), January 27, 2002.

John,

I thought your b&w image was stronger. Sorry, but this one leaves me completely flat. The overall lack of contrast de-emphasizes the graphic elements. The inaccurate focus prevents us from connecting with the girl's gaze. The people in the photo don't look interested or interesting. And the color cast doesn't work to establish or reinforce any kind of mood.

(I seldom visit museums, but I've spent some time photographing in galleries [the funkier the better]. The shot below was made on pushed EPJ with a 50 Summilux.)

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), January 27, 2002.

Joel,

i see you have a thing for girls

well, its either THAT or a thing for boys!

;-)

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 27, 2002.