This image was taken 4 weeks ago at the ROM (Royal Ontario Museum). The location was at the entrance of the bat exhibit. Slow shutter speed and moderate hyperfocal was utilized.

Flame away!

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 12, 2002

Answers

I'd love it except for the center white-ish man--the blur seems too extensive. Conversely, I love the rectangular blur of the kid to the right. Nice colors. Captures the ambiance of the place... Not perfect, but eye-catching & attractive work!

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), February 12, 2002.

Jogn:

I like it a lot.I think the sunlight streaks are vivid and add another dimension. No critique would be one without a suggestion tho': I would have cropped out the three partial frames on the upper left, or, with Photoshop, used the cloning tool to make them go away. (My jaw dropped when I saw the picture, because my son told me he went to the ROM last week and I thought he was the one in the leather jacket and jeans, but my son's hair is not that neat. My house is a 10 min walk from there.)

Did you use a tripod in the museum?

Keep on shooting. Ssomeday I will get up the energy/courage to submit some of mine.

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), February 12, 2002.

I like it! The images on the wall are full of motion- the woman running, fires, flight- all juxtaposed to the motion of the patrons. It's also interesting to see the two shorter people- children I'm guessing- but you can't tell easily. They just look like short adults, haflings...

Such blurred people shots work on dance stages, in train stations, markets; here it works too, altho' I think of galleries more as spaces of contemplation and relative stillness. Perhaps a single moving figure among many static ones would have made it a stronger shot- showing thematic contrast, or even irony. Too bad the man in the white top is facing the wrong way...

Is this natural light?

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), February 12, 2002.

Nice colours, but why is there so much dead space? What's the story? Where's the tension or interest except in a particular shade of blue or green?

I think at the very least a photo of this sort has to be _anecdotal_. This one doesn't make it.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 12, 2002.

Interesting shot, John. As what might be called a "casual capture" it mostly works, but falls short of greatness (you weren't hoping for a Pulitzer, were you? [lol]). From a compositional perspective, I like the combination of static and moving/blurred figures, but there is always the problem of getting the right people to do the right thing at the right time. Thus, I see whatever shortcomings there are to this image relating to the issue of capturing an image versus staging one with a specific objective.

Relative to the issue of combining static and moving people, it seems to me that either of two situations work: one person static and everyone else moving, or one person moving and everyone else static. In either case the "exception" is the attention-getter, and needs to be at the focal point of the composition for maximum effect. Here, the static person (at least the noticeable one) is at the left, looking out of the frame at something we can't see. Thus, the motion in the image has less impact than it might. For example, it would have been great if the girl (?) in the blue coat had been static, and everyone else moving.

I also find the bright spot at the top of the image to be distracting - the old eye-goes-to-the-bright-spot syndrome. The only way around that would be to either move the camera position, or crop the image differently, so as to eliminate the bright spot (spectral reflection?). You're also getting some reflections off the glass on the paintings on the wall. Under ideal circumstances, a polarizer could be used to reduce or eliminate those, but that gets back to the capture vs. stage issue.

So, bottom line: as a grab shot, it's interesting, but less effective than it might be (IMO). I'm not sure what techniques the Great Grabbers use, but it seems to me the lesson here (for me, at least) is to sense where the drama is taking place, and then quickly position that at the right point in the composition. Staging it would be far easier. ("Excuse me, sailor. Would you mind kissing her again?")

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), February 12, 2002.

Wow, John. This works at a lot of levels for me. The light, the colors, the great use of blur. My only quibble - I would crop (I know, I said the "C" word) a little off the left to get rid of the 3 frames on the brick wall and a little of the bottom to keep the same geometry.

Well done. Hey, remember that we are techno-geeks, here. What are the vital statistics for the shot (camera, film, lens, speed, aperture, blah, blah, blah)?

-- Hil (hegomez@agere.com), February 12, 2002.

why do you say 'Flame away!'?

wouldn't the critique process be more serving if you stated your objective, your narrative, your process, (fill in the blank), and then asked if you had succeeded or how best improve upon that theme?

your presentation and lack of clarity detracts from your fine imagery and supposed goal.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), February 12, 2002.

why do you say "Flame Away"?

Lighten up. Its a private joke between me and some other board contributors. I thought photography was suppose to be fun.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 12, 2002.

Oh yes,it's a joke for sure!

I would sell all that camera gear if I was you(which I'm so glad I'm not),you don't have an eye for this photography game do you Mr Chan?

I hear that basket making is having a bit of a come-back.

John.You are crap at photography.Honestly.

-- Honest Harry (harryblat@hotmail.com), February 12, 2002.

John- "Flame away!" I was reaching for the acetylene torch, but discovered the tank was empty! So... I have to agree with the other poster who wants details on film used. I'm looking at this and wondering if the 75 lux might have better isolated the most interesting parts of the shot-- like the couple to the left. It still would have enough depth of field and the most colorful parts of the picture would still be there. I like this one. Keep them coming.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), February 12, 2002.

I'm looking at this and wondering if the 75 lux might have better isolated the most interesting parts of the shot...

Yes I'd have to concur with you Frank but this was a grab shot where the camera doesn't make it up to the eye. I'm not yet comfortable enough to use the 75 in this mode. Oh, and just for U.

Shot details:

Leica M6 + 50 Summicron shot with Kodak Elite Chrome 100, exposure 1/8 sec @ f4, ambient lighting. Lighting sources, Several mercury halide lamps in the background, large halogen lamp above the pictures, overcast natural light from windows behind me. No tripod. I braced the camera between the top of my Billingham Hadley and my chin then took the shot.

Cheers,

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 12, 2002.

> I thought photography was suppose to be fun.

sorry john. I keep thinking that these forums are more broad and outreaching than a small circle of friends. private jokes aside, photography is grand fun, and forums should be more than repositories for grab shots and a collection of inside jokes. just my thoughts.

peace

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), February 12, 2002.

John,

I learn from the (constructive) comments people give to your output. Thanks for putting out your material and letting it ride.

What's the closest you've been to a person and made a successful grab shot? I'll be cruising Manhattan with a 50mm or 35mm on a grab shot day once the weather is a bit warmer. You certainly lit the grab shot bug in me. Do you find the 35 better or the 50?

Thanks,

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), February 12, 2002.

i guess i'm one of those few posters who doesn't like the image: it's so "cluttered." i don't see what you are trying to capture here.

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), February 12, 2002.

John- Did you first meter this one with the TTL meter? Of course, it wouldn't have been a "grab shot", then, I suppose. This would have been difficult to guess at. My Gossen would have handled it pretty easily, though. ISO 100 is tough to work with in this kind of light. Good color saturation.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), February 12, 2002.

Metered my hand by the mercury halide lamps before I sat down. The single halogen lamp overhead was MUCH brighter hence the washout.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 12, 2002.

Nice to see someone else who uses the term grab-shot.

-- Jeff Polaski (polaski@acm.org), February 13, 2002.

Thanks to all those who answered. I'm happy to recieve so many constructive critiques (thanks Appleby, R., Barker, R. et al.) and be amused by some of the other posts with, shall we say, entertainment value...

...honestly

;-)

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 13, 2002.