This is something that I thought I would share with the forum. Tell me what you think.

-- Rob Schopke (schopke@attbi.com), March 25, 2002

Answers

i would have gotten much closer to the base of the building with the sky sign and then shot upward with a superwide. this would have allowed you to include much more of the sky, while at the same time emphasized the monumental quality of the sign. also, when a superwide is used in this way, the convergence of verticals from the camera tilt would not bother me at all (in fact, it likely would be a plus to the composition). however, small amounts of convergence, as in this pic, do bother me. if you are wedded to this perspective, i would re-shoot it with a shift lens or get further back, level the camera, and crop a little. finally, i would try to make much more of the sky no matter how you shoot it by using filtration of some kind to enhance sky contrast (why not shoot in b&w with a dark red filter - - the color adds little here) AND wait for a time when the sky is more interesting. needless to say, this will be more important the more sky you include. summary: shoot from near the base of the building upward with a 15mm or 21mm, use b&w film, use a red filter, and wait for a dramtaic sky. of course, it's also nice as is.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 25, 2002.

do you need to show the sky at all? there is so little of it shown already and the toning (which i don't like) doesn't make it add anything to the picture. i think i would play around with the sky building and the building next to it (with lighthouse stripes). make it architectural by shooting perpendicular to the buildling line and maybe put a small sliver of sky on top.

i shoot color which might have helped. either way i would like to see this shot without the toning.

thanks for showing

-- john molloy (ballyscanlon@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002.

Rob: How did the toning come about? Was the negative printed on a color paper? The reason I ask is because I have recently received b&w prints with similar toning. When I asked the local processing lab the reason for it I was told that the Delta 100 film I used was the reason. The explanation did not make sense to me. My conclusion was that the lab was printing on a type of color paper that rendered these brownish tones, but I am not knowledgeable enough to challenge their argument. What is the opinion of forum members? Thanks.

-- Max Wall (mtwall@earthlink.net), March 25, 2002.

The toning is a result of the actual developement of the negative. When I developed the negative I actually toned the negative with a sepia toning! One member did not like it. That was his opinion. I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with him. I think the toning brings in the details of the close building in the foreground. If he would have seen the original print he may have a different opinion. But for your answer the toning was intentional and was done to the negative...not the print and it was not done in Photoshop!

-- Rob Schopke (schopke@attbi.com), March 25, 2002.

The first comment reminds me of the old saying about what opinions are like. I thought the picture was fairly interesting. I have been working outside of SF for almost a year in the east bay. I got to the City a few times in the last few weeks and was reminded all over again, specially in the south of market area, that the native bird of California is the building crane. The dot com bust doesn't seem to have slowed development much. Keep shooting those cityscapes. Cheers.

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), March 25, 2002.

Roger,

I disagree, I would never have shot this with a super-wide (SWC) I was using a Leica and never intended on using a Hasselblad. The base of the building was not accessable as it is being torn down and surrounded by fences. Color film would have ruined this picture. It was raining and a very grey day. The buildings have virtually no color and I would have ended up with a completely flat uninteresting picture. The toning does add a lot to this picture. It accentuates the details and textures found in this very interesting building. Without this warm tone this feeling would have been lost to some degree.

-- Rob Schopke (schopke@attbi.com), March 25, 2002.

The problem I see is that the toning didn't help in any way to change the fact that it's flat and fairly uninteresting. A dramatic sky would have helped, as would have either straightening the buildings or making the distortion more extreme.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 25, 2002.

i would have gotten much closer to the base of the building with the sky sign and then used oil paints, and maybe a #3 brush, but only the warmer colors of the pallet....maybe I'd have even stepped in the same river twice whil I was at it...

just kidding--this is a fun shot. works great. enough said.

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), March 25, 2002.

1. there are plenty of super wides available for the leica -- i don't know why you think i was suggesting a hasselblad swc??

2. i specifically advocated for black and white film -- i was not sure if this was a color shot or black and white.

3. how would i know the base of the building is inaccessible??

4. your comment about the print color being the result of the negative color is suppose makes sense only if you scanned the negative rather than printed it on mono paper.

5. it is odd to solicit opinions and then be defensive about suggestions -- were you hoping for just some plumping as opposed to a critique??

6. as the pic stands now, i just don't get it. you have photographed a public sign. i see no particular attempt at visual irony, graphic effect, etc.

7. the white, detail-less sky bothers me -- especially with the major reference to the "sky" in the photo. i think filtration would have helped add detail.

8. i contiue to be bothered by the converging verticals.

good luck with your shooting!!

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 25, 2002.

i like the photo but... crop out the modern bldgs.No sky.i like the 2 bldgs,the sign,the diagonals,sepia tone OK,prefer true B/W.i would'nt have used the Hassie SWC as i do'nt own one!Thanx for sharing.

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002.

Hi, Rob:

To comment your photo is extremely simple for me: GREAT !

No doubt we can say lots of things, but you took the photo and only you know of the constraints you had to go through in order to render the image you show today. Maybe idealy it could have been different . . . or even better. But this is not an ideal world, isn't it?

BTW, I wrote the above before reading much of the previous comments and I'd repeat it after reading.

The just said - IMHO: GREAT !

Thanks for sharing, Rob.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), March 25, 2002.

Rob, no critique from me. The photo is fine as it is. Simple and straightforward. The photo has a message and it is clearly understood. Sure there may be other creative ways to look at the scene, but I like the composition as it is.

Well done:)

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002.

I have to agree with Roger, especially on points 5 through 8. I think this could have been done a whole lot better and you could do a better job of listening here.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 26, 2002.

rob -- just a small amount of follow-up. i belong to a foto critique groups in my area. the members have varied backgrounds: some are PJs, one is the official photog for a major university, another is a scientific microphotographer, several are large format fine art photogs, one is a pro glamour photog for a well-known mag, one is an AP sports (mostly) photog. anyway, we all bring photos for critique to each quarterly meeting. despite the incredibly high quality of most of the work, it has never happened that someone has put something down and the group merely responded "good job, perfect." each photo gets ripped, with many suggestions for possible improvement. the things i suggested to you (change perspective, change focal length of lens, crop, shoot it in mono instead of color) are classic suggestions that pop up all the time. obviously not all the suggestions are implemented. but i think everyone benefits from at least thinking about how a shot mite have been done differently. your post asked for a "critique." that is a very specific word that implies (constructive) criticism. that is what i tried to give you. i am sorry if you felt like i was being mean-spirited. that was the furthest thing from my mind. anyway, good luck with your photography. and p.s., i guess i should have been more specific, but by "superwide," i was simply referring to that category of very wide angle lenses, generally 24mm or wider on 35mm format; specifically i was thinkig of the 21 or the vc 15 heliar.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 26, 2002.

Roger,

Thanks, I appreciate your last post. I must say I did interpret your post as being a little harsh. One reason I pulled the image off the site was because I felt the net was not the proper forum to have this, and in many cases, any photo critigued. When I look at the image in my hand I think the toning is beautiful. The net's and everybodies different monitor calibrations probably were not doing the image justice.

I am currently getting an MFA in photography and I am used to having my work critiqued. There came a point last night when I felt it was all just a bunch of angry words being thrown. In my opinion those kinds of feeling should not be a part of a public forum. Thats the second reason why I pulled the image from the net. I am sure if you and I were standing face to face and you had told me your comments, I would have heard them much differently. Being in person and reading the non-verbal cues is vitally important. Without the non-verbal communication it becomes really hard, sometimes, to truly understand what someone is saying. A smile means a lot.

The third reason I pulled the image is because I am feeling like this forum should be about fun, friendly communication. I may be wrong. What was going on yesterday was not fun for me. I was thinking about removing this site from my bookmarks. There are people, not meaning you, but there are people who post cruel, hurtful, and sometimes disgusting posts. Maybe they think they are funny, maybe they think they are right, maybe they think it is all done in the spirit of entertainment. Who knows. But last night was not fun any more. To be honest I am not sure if I will post any more images to this site. I have posted images a few times, expecting fun and friendly communication and that is not what I got. I guess I use this site for entertainment, to blow off a little steam, and not for professional business. If this site is for profesional business and I am posting for entertainment, then I have no business posting here.

Well, I am saying that I really need to think about my experience on this site and consider if I belong. I do thank you for your comments this morning. They seemed more friendly. I appriciate it. I wish you the best in life.

Rob Schopke

-- Rob Schopke (schopke@attbi.com), March 26, 2002.

rob -- photo.net has a gallery section for posting photos. many people post whole portfolios there. members (anyone can join) can peruse the portfolios, some leave comments, some do not. you have to work a little to see the comments, so it's semi (very semi!!) private. there certainly is no expectation, however, that anyone HAS to leave a comment. the photos are there for people to enjoy, first and foremost. it is less common to post photos here. usually it is done to illustrate a specific point, demonstrate a piece of gear, or to ask for help when a shot is "not quite there." since your post asked for a "critique," i assumed you wanted constructive criticism and/or a NEW perspective. i certainly didn't think you just wanted to hear "nice job." that's not a critique (in fact, it's what people often say in critique settings where they think a pic is unslavagable!!). in my original post, i suggested changing perspective, focal, length, toning, and crop. these are all typical changes to consider when refining a still life/landscape (i.e. a shot that can be captured over and over again until it is rite). i also said your pic was "nice as is." i'm not sure why you thought that was harsh, but as you say, much is lost when visual cues are absent from interpersonal communication. you say you often get harsh/hurtful responses when you post images here. i really don't think it is an intentionally harsh group. they may be just trying to give you what they (and i) thought you wanted -- constructive criticism, new ideas, new perspectives, etc. if you want more of a gallery type setting (on-line), try photo.net. and if you just want to share a pic here, do so (i for one would love to see more pics here and wish i had a way to post them myself). just make your purpose in posting clear. if you ask for a critique, don't be surprised if you get one. anyway, sorry you misapprehended my intent. good luck with your course and with your photography in general. and p.s. never worry what anybody else thinks of your work. do what looks best to you and, if there is an artist in you, the world will eventually come 'round.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 26, 2002.

Rob - You asked for critique and you got it. For some reason, your reaction, particularly pulling the picture and leaving a widowed thread, seems extreme. If you just want to share, you might consider leaving out the word "critique."

I didn't think the critique here was particularly harsh. I have had hate mail from the Ansel Adams crowd over some of my photos, I have had my stuff called almost every conceivable name imaginable. Most of it has been from people who had no interest in helping, but who, like Ansel Adams, felt that certain types of photographs shouldn't even be shown.

You encountered none of that here. What you got was suggestions that would improve the photograph. Every photograph can be improved, and that's why it's worth listening to reasonable criticism, which is what you got.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 26, 2002.

Hi, Rob:

You can easily see that Jeff's critique and mine are quite different.

However I do agree with Jeff that you overreacted about the critics your work got here.

I'm aware that some people could not really know how or wouldn't want to expresss themselves in a courteous way when you volunteer to show some of your work that more probably you are particularly happy about. I also know that receiving pleasant comments is really agreable while harsh comments leave you with a bad taste for a while, specially if you think they are not really justified. But all in all I think this is a good place to show your work and I'd kindly suggest to continue doing so in the future.

Regards, Rob.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), March 26, 2002.

If you are still out there Rob ,i for one enjoyed your photograph.I thought it was different and unusual,and i thank you for sharing it with this Forum.Best of luck...Regards Allen

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), March 26, 2002.