This was mid-afternoon in an almost empty café.
-- Stephane Bosman (stephane_bosman@yahoo.co.uk), June 04, 2002
Photo critique: In a cafégreenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread |
I was in Québec two weeks ago, alone as a total stranger. And I happen to take pictures that could have been taken anywhere...
This was mid-afternoon in an almost empty café.
-- Stephane Bosman (stephane_bosman@yahoo.co.uk), June 04, 2002
My critique would be that the shot is of her back w/o anything otherwise particularly redeeming. Technically, nice exposure, nice variety of zones. But nothing compositionally that seems to justify the photo.
-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), June 04, 2002.
I like it. I find it has a mood (I must say I love the effect of the smoke + coffee in the middle of the frame). I think it could have been stronger without the guy in the background. It may not be everyone's cup of tee (no pun), but I think it conveys the atmosphere of a caffe in a really effective way. Regards
-- Antonio Carrus (Milan, Italy) (antoniocarrus@yahoo.it), June 04, 2002.
I like it. The left lean bugs me a bit, could've been corrected with the transform/rotate tool in photo shop. But that's a small nit-pick. I like the view from behind. There is a sense of intrigue to it. Who is she? ( I think it's a she). What is she reading? Why is she all alone in the middle of the day? I like images that don't give you all the answers. Who's the guy in the distance talking to? Makes me want to lean to the right and find out.
-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), June 04, 2002.
Hi Stephane,I'm with Richardo. I also like the annonymity of the photograph. It is a reflection of the photographer's sense of strangness; it is also a recording of a moment that is special because it seems like every other moment until contemplated in its isolation. It is a subtile statement on life. It tells us that life is not intrinsically warm and friendly; but it it not cold and unfriendly either. It is there for the partaking of, however humbly.
Technically this photograph is also very good.
Best,
Alex
-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), June 04, 2002.
I like it just the way it is. Has a nice quiet, somewhat somber tone to the atmosphere. I like the lighting, especially the smoke coming from the lady's table. I like the worker in the composition as well. Very nice photo. Thanks for sharing.
-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), June 04, 2002.
Totally disagree with Patrick - a very fine, sensitive photograph. I wonder if she is reading a letter from/to a friend/boyfriend. There is tension in the picture - she is about to do something - take another drag on the cigarette; leave; whatever. Very good exposure to capture detail both ends. Very good.
-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), June 04, 2002.
Since you asked...I agree that exposure seems to be right on. We probably don't need to debate the merit or ethics of trying to photograph someone's face in such in intimate setting. That being said, and knowing you were a stranger there, there is something lonely about the shot, in addition to the back of your subject's head, the lamp on the left center edge appears to be a head, also avoiding your lens.
-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), June 04, 2002.
I'm with Patrick. I think if th ecamera was looking more directly over the main subject's shoulder so we had a better idea of what she was doing, th eimage would have more impact. And the second subject balances out the image nicely either way.
-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), June 04, 2002.
Delayed thumb disorder on the keyboard today -- sorry. I didn't sleep well last night...;-),
-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), June 04, 2002.
I would like the photo more if either it was cropped at the pole and/or the glaring windows were burned in a bit to reveal more detail.I like the triangle of the clock, the lamp and the person at the table. A quiet introspective moment...thanks for sharing.
-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), June 04, 2002.
At first glance I hadn't noticed the smoke from the cup. Then I read somebody mentioned it, I went back to look over again and I strongly felt the cofee smell. That can happen only with a very good photo, I think. So yours just got to be a very good one indeed.Thanks for sharing, Stephane.
-Iván
-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), June 04, 2002.
(Gentle Rebuke) try not to photograph people from behind - only creeps, cowards and complete newbies do it. Be bold and show come courage (or rat-cunning) and photograph from the front - your photographs will immediately become more interesting and different from the usual www mailing list contribution.While we are at it, why not try some colour film? Also, why not play around with using a wider aperture and selective focus? After all, optical engineers went to a lot of trouble to make sure our lenses work well when wide-open, why not make use of this?
-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), June 04, 2002.
try not to photograph people from behind - only creeps, cowards and complete newbies do it.So which of these three categories is Ralph Gibson in?:
Ralph Gibson's "Coatman"
-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), June 04, 2002.
Lots of reactions here, thank you all :)Some like it some don't, that's to be expected :)
Some comments make me want to give some more explanations.
I made a mistake in my introductory text: it was mid morning much more than mid afternoon :) I can confirm that she's a lady and the smoke is from her cigarette. I was siting at the table right behind her. I arrived before her. I liked the place, its light, its mood, its style.It was nearly silent as well, no music, almost like the reading room of a library.
This is the second picture I took, and the last. I felt good after this one. And I still feel good about it now.
I understand that it might have been improved by changing my point of vue, but I did not even think of it. The fact that it would have been impossible to do without being noticed did not help either. The lens is a Summicron 28, so you can guess I was quite close to the lady and I did not want to create any noise. By the way, it is shot at 2.8 or 4, I don't remember exactly, but not wildly closed. I did not want everything to be sharp while maintaining reasonnable clarity in the entire room. That worked pretty well I think, so I have no regret concerning the aperture. The wide angle was a conscious choice. I wanted the depth because the room felt large from where I was and a 50 would not have worked. I don't own a 35 so that possibility did not occur to me :)
As for colour, I don't know. I'm not colourblind, but I tend to see more and more in black and white, and I like it. I'm not sure colour would improve anything but that's all subjective. It is true that different people would have taken different pitures in the same situation. I am not a creep nor a coward and probably not a newbie anymore. That scene is what it is because we stand behing the lady. I can not see how one can improve _this_ picture by going a half circle around her. Could have been an interesting picture, but another one altogether.
-- Stephane Bosman (stephane_bosman@yahoo.co.uk), June 04, 2002.
"Gentle Rebuke"?????? Man, I'd hate to hear a harsh one. Were it up to Andrew this nice little shot would never have been taken. Instead, it would've taken on all the cliche' attributes that Andrew was kind enough to laundry list for Stephane.
-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), June 05, 2002.
Well, I don't directly opose on taking the picture from someone's back. But yet I think the photo misses some exitement. Maybe it would have been stronger if you would have been closer to the girl, so you could see more of what she is doing. Also the pillar is splitting the foto in two too much, for that a little further away would have been better :-). Or the girl should have been on the other side of the pillar so it is nit in the picture.I like the height of the picture though and the atmosphere of the bar
Reinier
-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), June 05, 2002.
Why didn't you take the shot from the other side? It most be really hard taking photo's of the back of someones head. I think you are just a bit spineless Stephane.
-- Phill Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), June 05, 2002.
fwiw, I totally agree with Marc. What is this some kind of macho-dick thing? What about going up to people... better: police officers - pistol whipping them and then taking a shot of them squirming in pain/confusion. Forget making images, some of you people should play ice hockey.
-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), June 05, 2002.
Phil,I took that picture because I saw it from where I was. I guess the general idea of your post is that one should try different angles.
I don't get the "spineless" bit, though. English is not my mother language. Could you elaborate a bit ?
-- Stephane Bosman (stephane_bosman@yahoo.co.uk), June 05, 2002.
You have legs don't you Stephane? Were you scared that the girl might get up and remonstrate with you if she saw you taking the picture?
-- Phill Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), June 05, 2002.
Phill, you started out being a pretty nice guy, then a funny guy, now you're just being a wanker. I preferred funny/nice.
-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), June 05, 2002.
Oh sorry Rob, I hadn't realised that I was put on this planet to entertain you?
-- Phill Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), June 06, 2002.
No, Phill, but pointless rudeness is just that - pointless. At least it was funny rudeness before.By now, I think you should have got over the equally rude behaviour of other people that seemed to make you angry initially - for instance the criticism re your photog/family swap project (how did that go, by the way?). So maybe you can just chill out and be nice for a change.
I'm still waiting to see some of your pictures.
-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), June 06, 2002.
I can see you are a bit confused Rob. You may have noticed I don't come in here that often, you lot aren't even fun to take the piss out of, that's how dull you are.I would rather hammer a rusty 6 inch nail through my balls than show you my photo's Rob.
-- Phil Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), June 06, 2002.
I don't think I'm confused, Phill - in fact I remember you emailing me privately to ask me about my work and talking about putting up a website. I'm just as interested now as I was then, but it's your choice of course.For someone who's so bored with this forum, you do seem to have a great need to make an impression on it.
So, good luck with the rusty nails.
-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), June 06, 2002.
Well, I still like the photo, a few days later. I like the notal range, I like the shadows, the worn floor, the wine glass on the left, the clock on the wall, and the architectural ceiling.I don't understand what's wrong with taking a photo of someone's back? After all, we are all "half back and half front". Should stand to reason that statistics would dictate that at any one given point, a person would be seeing 50 % of the population from the back. And what's wrong with the back? I like the back. The front is overrated anyway. To many things going on up there. The back is much more simple, refined, "basic".
Keep shooting from the back, Stephane.. who knows... maybe you'll start a completely new genre of portraiture! =-)
b~
-- Bob (bobflores@attbi.com), June 06, 2002.
You see Rob, you are confused, because I have never e-mailed you, why would I?
-- Phil Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), June 06, 2002.
I used to feel that it was essential to not have pictures of backs, but I agree with Bob that half of life at least consists of backs, and nowadays I'm less worried about that. Of course, a portrait from the back is a challenging proposition, to say the least. But for more atmospheric or establishing pictures, I think it can be perfectly valid. In fact, I think that once you let go of the need for direct engagement, then many interesting questions arise - like how big does a figure have to be to command interest in a picture, how non- decisive does the moment have to be, etc. The "decisive moment" idea is pretty much the dramatic equivalent of to-the-eyes photography, and I feel that it is possible to have a much more relaxed, uneventful sort of picture, of which this is an example. A photographer who excels in this is Mahendra Sinh, a virtually unknown Indian snapper.
-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), June 06, 2002.
Phil/Phill, I have six emails from philkneen@manx.net in my inbox. Obviously this may very well not be the person who is currently using the address as a signature on this forum. Which might well explain the difference in behaviour between the person who wrote to me back then and the person I'm talking to now.
-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), June 06, 2002.
Stephane, you wondered about the meaning of spineless. Just read over some these posts...the meaning will come to you. Again, nice quiet little photo. Well worth taking as is.
-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), June 06, 2002.
I like it... alot. The placement of the girl, the sense of depth I get looking into the scene, the 'ancient' ceiling, the unusual door with the clock above it, and the mood it portrays. Good job. My only criticism is the brightness range is too great for my tastes (which could be from the scanning process?): ie., the highlights outside the windows could perhaps be burned in a little.
-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), June 06, 2002.
I like this picture, especially the balance of the light, although I think it would have been better if you had held the camera higher - less keystoning? To me, the café is the subject of this picture, not the girl. The fact that she's facing away from the camera is of no relevance.
-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), June 06, 2002.
It's a nice, quiet picture with good balance. Thanks, Stephane.Andrew, I can think of lots of examples of where photographing someone from behind has been worthwhile. Stephane's is one, Ralph's is one, here's another:
Not a creep, coward or complete newbie in the bunch.
-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), June 07, 2002.
