Feedback requested. Warning: pictures of kids.

Started Apr 13, 2013 | Discussions
s_grins
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,162Gear list
Like?
Re: Feedback requested. Warning: pictures of kids.
In reply to JoeNapa, Apr 14, 2013

I Like kids. I do not likes most of the photos.  Most of them are excellent for home use, but not for going public.

About the very last shot of the house: why didn't you do it in color? It looks empty, haunted, and condemned...

-- hide signature --

Looking for equilibrium...

 s_grins's gear list:s_grins's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm F4-5.6 OIS Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Pikme
Senior MemberPosts: 1,469
Like?
Re: Feedback requested. Warning: pictures of kids.
In reply to s_grins, Apr 14, 2013

s_grins wrote:

About the very last shot of the house: why didn't you do it in color? It looks empty, haunted, and condemned...

is there a new rule that all photos of houses have to look cheerful?

-- hide signature --

Roberto M.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 15,713Gear list
Like?
What is the point of Photography?
In reply to Pikme, Apr 14, 2013

Pikme wrote:

tedolf wrote:

No. 1:   Feet are chopped off and out of focus.

No. 2:   Table, chair are chopped off-no appearent effort at composition of drawings on wall.

No. 3:   Child in back is out of focus.

No. 4:   Wings are cut off and feet are out of focus.

No. 5:   Adult is chopped in half.

No. 6:  Now this one could be a good photo if you would frame it to eliminate the power lines.  Can be done in PP so this one is salvagable.

These photo's demonstate either a complete lack of understanding of composition or laziness on the photographer's part.

In either case, there is no point in owning a $1,400.00 camera if this is the level of effort you are going to put into your photography.

Other than the out of focus parts of the photo's, you  may as well have a point-n-shoot camera.

TEdolph\

Tedolph,

I think you know the 'rules' of photography perhaps, but you also miss the point sometimes of photography.

Well, what is it?

Until you answer that your comments below are without context and thus, merit.

Your comments remind me of those posts where people put up famous photos from well known master photographers (without names) and then the photos are ripped to shreds by people quoting all the places where the 'rules' were not followed.

See http://petapixel.com/2011/07/13/why-you-shouldnt-give-too-much-weight-to-anonymous-online-critics/

or  http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

or http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/11/great-photographers-on-the-internet-part-ii.html

You know what?

Every once in a while, the "Master Photographers" produced crap.

Usually, we only see their best work too.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the adult being chopped in half in #5 or the feet chopped off/OOF in #1.

Yes, there is a problem with the feet chopped  off in No. 1.  There are rules about where and how to chop off apendages.  The portrait photographers are well familair with them.

You can make a case that the adult chopped in half in No. 5 has a compositional purpose but the same can not be said for the distracting background.

In either case, it is appearent that the "composition" if you can call it that was accidental as the OP didn't seem to pay any attention to it in any of these photographs and that is the point I was making.......

which you missed in its entirety.

Or that the wings are cut off in #4 or feet OOF -- who cares about the feet??

Obviously, the OP didn't.

OMG, for years and years these forums insisted that ALL photos must have zero DOF,

Clearly an error.

now suddenly the forums are insisting that ALL photos have 100% DOF??

Not quite, photo's should have appropriate DOF for the subject at hand.

I suspect this may be a subtlety that escapes you.

There aren't 'rules' for photography;

I beg to differ.

So would my photography teacher.

So would anyone who teaches Graphic Arts of any type.

but there are effects -

Well, there are those too but they are different from the Rules of Composition.

the only reason to learn the 'rules' is to understand the effects.

Where did you get this idea from?

Effects are things like: soft focus, multiple images, grainyness, high key/low key exposure, colorization, poserization, etc.

None of those, "effects" are used in these photo's so obviously what we are talking about here is "composition".

Do you understand what  that is?

Then use the effects to get the results you want, rather than blindly follow some list of 'rules'.

I am afraid you have confounded "effects" with "composition" and they are two entirely different terms of art.

Having said all that, I don't actually like the first 5 photos personally because I don't like the processing and some are too blurry for me.  But photo #6 - when viewed in the larger size - I LOVE that one and I wouldn't ever dream of removing the power lines.  I think it is framed perfectly and love the processing.

Well to each his own, although this one had the most potential.

I notice that the OP's post did not get many "thumbs up" now, did it?

If we still had "thumbs down" I wonder how many it would have gotten?

-- hide signature --

Roberto M.

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 15,713Gear list
Like?
Re: Warning: critic was lazy......
In reply to LincolnB, Apr 14, 2013

LincolnB wrote:

Pikme wrote:

tedolf wrote:

No. 1:   Feet are chopped off and out of focus.

No. 2:   Table, chair are chopped off-no appearent effort at composition of drawings on wall.

No. 3:   Child in back is out of focus.

No. 4:   Wings are cut off and feet are out of focus.

No. 5:   Adult is chopped in half.

No. 6:  Now this one could be a good photo if you would frame it to eliminate the power lines.  Can be done in PP so this one is salvagable.

These photo's demonstate either a complete lack of understanding of composition or laziness on the photographer's part.

In either case, there is no point in owning a $1,400.00 camera if this is the level of effort you are going to put into your photography.

Other than the out of focus parts of the photo's, you  may as well have a point-n-shoot camera.

TEdolph\

Tedolph,

I think you know the 'rules' of photography perhaps, but you also miss the point sometimes of photography.  Your comments remind me of those posts where people put up famous photos from well known master photographers (without names) and then the photos are ripped to shreds by people quoting all the places where the 'rules' were not followed.

See http://petapixel.com/2011/07/13/why-you-shouldnt-give-too-much-weight-to-anonymous-online-critics/

or  http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

or http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/11/great-photographers-on-the-internet-part-ii.html

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the adult being chopped in half in #5 or the feet chopped off/OOF in #1. Or that the wings are cut off in #4 or feet OOF -- who cares about the feet??

OMG, for years and years these forums insisted that ALL photos must have zero DOF, now suddenly the forums are insisting that ALL photos have 100% DOF??

There aren't 'rules' for photography; but there are effects - the only reason to learn the 'rules' is to understand the effects.  Then use the effects to get the results you want, rather than blindly follow some list of 'rules'.

Having said all that, I don't actually like the first 5 photos personally because I don't like the processing and some are too blurry for me.  But photo #6 - when viewed in the larger size - I LOVE that one and I wouldn't ever dream of removing the power lines.  I think it is framed perfectly and love the processing.

Generally I agree. While the composition of these shots are often either uninspired or simply not interesting, I'm not sure tedolf has correctly figured out why.

I might have to agree with you.

But, I had to come up with something!

The subjects are okay if you like that sort of thing but the arrangement of elements within the frame is haphazard. #5 has the most potential for me and I'm perfectly okay with the adult being chopped off in half.

You can make a case for that.

I wish that car wasn't in the background, however, as it add nothing to the 'story'.

exactly.

My point was that I don't think that the OP paid any attention to composition at all.

It is as you say, "random".

It also might have been a cooler shot if taken from a lower angle. Removing power lines from in front of an older house? That would probably end up looking wierd, like an 80 year-old man with black hair. Since the OP's style is more documentary than art, it would probably be counterproductive as well.

Yes, but there are too many of them.

How about just including the lower power lines?

Anyway, the PP on this shot was very nice.

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ricardo Maia
Regular MemberPosts: 167Gear list
Like?
Re: Warning: photographer was lazy......
In reply to tedolf, Apr 14, 2013

tedolf wrote:

JoeNapa wrote:

These are just some pictures of my home and family that I took with my new Em-5 and 12mm lens.  Thanks, Joe.

No. 1:   Feet are chopped off and out of focus.

No. 2:   Table, chair are chopped off-no appearent effort at composition of drawings on wall.

No. 3:   Child in back is out of focus.

No. 4:   Wings are cut off and feet are out of focus.

No. 5:   Adult is chopped in half.

No. 6:  Now this one could be a good photo if you would frame it to eliminate the power lines.  Can be done in PP so this one is salvagable.

These photo's demonstate either a complete lack of understanding of composition or laziness on the photographer's part.

In either case, there is no point in owning a $1,400.00 camera if this is the level of effort you are going to put into your photography.

Other than the out of focus parts of the photo's, you  may as well have a point-n-shoot camera.

TEdolph\

Reading this answer, I had to scroll up to confirm it was really you who were answering, but it has been confirmed anbonus surprise for me.

I really don't know if you want to bee a weird character, or if you really are one.

This just by reading your answers around this forum.

 Ricardo Maia's gear list:Ricardo Maia's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F31fd Fujifilm X100S
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 15,713Gear list
Like?
Character.....
In reply to Ricardo Maia, Apr 14, 2013

Ricardo Maia wrote:

tedolf wrote:

JoeNapa wrote:

These are just some pictures of my home and family that I took with my new Em-5 and 12mm lens.  Thanks, Joe.

No. 1:   Feet are chopped off and out of focus.

No. 2:   Table, chair are chopped off-no appearent effort at composition of drawings on wall.

No. 3:   Child in back is out of focus.

No. 4:   Wings are cut off and feet are out of focus.

No. 5:   Adult is chopped in half.

No. 6:  Now this one could be a good photo if you would frame it to eliminate the power lines.  Can be done in PP so this one is salvagable.

These photo's demonstate either a complete lack of understanding of composition or laziness on the photographer's part.

In either case, there is no point in owning a $1,400.00 camera if this is the level of effort you are going to put into your photography.

Other than the out of focus parts of the photo's, you  may as well have a point-n-shoot camera.

TEdolph\

Reading this answer, I had to scroll up to confirm it was really you who were answering, but it has been confirmed anbonus surprise for me.

I really don't know if you want to bee a weird character, or if you really are one.

Really are one.

This just by reading your answers around this forum.

What kind of "character" are you?

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 15,713Gear list
Like?
Feedback requested.......
In reply to Wafflebird, Apr 14, 2013

Wafflebird wrote:

Joe,

What you have here are pictures that you and your children will be able to look back on with many fond memories. If you, like me, move from one home to another these pictures will serve the girls in helping them remember the "Old house" and if not it will still help them remember when.

It is disappointing here when people only want to be critical and want to look at pictures from a clinical perspective. Some of the "imperfect techniques" end up being some of the best pictures. While technical photography is indeed occupying a certain niche of photography I think it lunacy to think that the snapshots (which we all love for capturing that special family moment) should be held to some technical specifications such as rule of thirds (OMG) etc.

Well, if you are just going to take "snapshots" why bother buying a $1,400.00 camera?

Why not get a $99.00 camera and put the other $1,300.00 in the girl's College Fund?

Oh wait let me change my focus point to get the rule of thirds before she……………………. Oh she already blew out the candles, man missed it………..

Even marginally competent photographers learn how to apply the Rules of Composition as second nature, without having to think about them.

That is the entire purpose behind, "focus and recompose" that you have heard about.

Why shouldn't even "snap shots" look good?

Wouldn't those photographs, "that you and your children will be able to look back on with many fond memories" be even fonder if the shot was properly composed-or composed at all?

It doesn't cost any more to take a well composed snap shot as it does to take a well composed snapshot.

Ask yourself a question, look at that picture # 4 and tell me how you will feel about looking at it 15 years from now in a nice frame on your wall, wall unit etc, how your girl will feel about that picture.

Wouldn't she feel better about it if some effort had gone into composing it?

Maybe she would have thought, "gee-see how much my Daddy loved us-he actually made the effort to properly compose the photo!".

It is a winner regardless of what any of us here think, it is quite simply brilliant, end of story.

It isn't "brilliant".

It is a lazy photo.

My son still looks at many pictures (from a crappy Sony 8 megapixel camera) from when he was around the same age from the bathtub and his mom and her "Hand monster" getting him. These are the best kind of pictures in my opinion for family. And oh my God he is in THE CENTER of the picture, how could I,…………………………………………….. oh wait that picture is perfect. Nuff said.

I think something more can be said.

Even with a Super 8 camera it is possible with some effort to make a story line, use some scene que cards and do some editing so that it is appearent to those looking at it years later that you actually gave a damn.

Just keep in mind that when you ask for "Feedback" you will open yourself up to some who can be over jealous in "Sharing" their less than courteous feedback.

Jealous?

Roelf is Jealous?

Reall?

But just as the sun rises each day it would unfortunately appear that certain folks will act in a very predictable fashion. There have been many comments that have been positive in this forum but there are many unnecessarily harsh as well.

Who is to jusdge what is "unnecesarily" harsh or gentle?

You?

I think the OP deserves to be treated like an adult.

He asked for feedback and he got it.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Can't he decide for himself what he wants to pay attention to and what he wants to dismiss?

Or do you have to do it for him?

Some here lack perspective and decency, but it is an internet forum after all, so this activity is expected and has been here for some time and will be in the future.

This should NEVER discourage you from taking pictures, at this point is is simply hard drive space.

No one discouraged him from doing anything.

We simply gave him our oppinion as he asked us to.

Keep taking great pictures and enjoy your family, they are what matters. You will get plenty of constructive feedback as well from others as you continue. So are your pictures TECHNICALLY perfect, well one, has weighed in, as for me they are A+ for what I think you are going for.

What was not "construtive" about the feedback.

Did it not have sufficient particularity to be usefull?

Thanks for sharing.

Remember if you do not take the pictures you will not have them.

Well, that is one point of view.

I guess the OP could just put his camera on a tripod pointed at the breakfast table and set it to take random  photographs.

Would that be a good idea?

-- hide signature --

My saying on pictures;
"If you don't take them you won't have them"

A high standard indeed!

TEdolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rens
Senior MemberPosts: 1,359Gear list
Like?
Re: Warning: photographer was lazy......
In reply to tedolf, Apr 14, 2013

Hi JoeNapa,

I think you might try framing from different directions and angles before shooting.

Especially as you use the EM-5 with it's tilting screen, you can get shots from low down, often good for shooting small children.

-- hide signature --

Rens
There are optimists and there are realists

 Rens's gear list:Rens's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Pikme
Senior MemberPosts: 1,469
Like?
Re: What is the point of Photography?
In reply to tedolf, Apr 14, 2013

I would love to have a real conversation about these things, but without the personal attacks and not in this thread.

But briefly I was trying to make a couple of points:

- the 'rules' that you speak of are meant to provide a 'safe' photo, 'safe' because the 'rules' are normal artist techniques to ensure a sense of balance and structure for the viewer, and protect against causing unintentional unease or tension by having a crooked horizon, chopped off appendage at the joint, missing body part, running animal about to run out of the frame, etc.  But what if you want to create some drama or unease in the viewer for your purpose?  Well, those 'bad' things become tools for the artist to use - that is what I mean by learning the effects and then using them.  Perhaps I am not using the correct technical word to call them 'effects' but hopefully you can understand what I mean.

- how can you know that he meant to make ordinary portraits that follow the ordinary portraits rulebook?  On the 'what makes a good photo' thread in this forum, I mentioned some artists whose work would be ripped to shreds in these forums.  One example is Bruno Quinquet's Salaryman Project - an entire body of work where the faces are intentionally obscured to protect the privacy of the individual.  Yet the work is very personal, moving, powerful, evocative, emotional, etc.  They are beautiful portraits without recognizable faces - what set of 'rules' did he follow?

- these forums have an incredibly narrow set of 'rules' that all photos are supposed to follow - but in the real world, there are no such limitations.  I could post hundreds of amazingly good photos by famous and not so famous artists that break all these 'rules' - many that most people would recognize but have forgotten that they didn't follow the 'rules'.  I just wish more people would spend half as much time in the library or at galleries or museums looking at modern and historical photography as they spend on these forums.  It would be educational and so liberating.

-  so often people get bogged down with trifling details that do not matter at all, such as 'blown' specular highlights.  I suggest that your comments about some of the OOF items in his pictures are along those lines - not every photo has to have every inch of the subject in sharp focus --- really, who the heck cares about the OOF feet in picture #4??  The point of interest is the face, not the knitting details of the child's socks!

- my favorite photos of my own children and friends are generally the least technically 'good' pictures I take, because they are done spur of the moment to capture a special emotion or time or place.  Everyone (meaning family and friends) loves those pictures because they do capture a fleeting moment of great emotion ---- no one ever looks at a photo with great emotional content and then remarks about the OOF left toe or the missing elbow on the right side!  That's what I meant by sometimes missing the point.

-- hide signature --

Roberto M.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
al_in_philly
Regular MemberPosts: 430Gear list
Like?
Re: Feedback requested. Warning: pictures of kids.
In reply to JoeNapa, Apr 14, 2013

A few weeks back, an old friend, now living on the other side of the country, who's started to get into photography sent me a link to a recent set of photos which she had just shot.  She asked me which ones I thought were "good" and what she might do to make any of them better.  After looking at the set and after some thought, I replied: "Which ones do you feel are good, and what might you want to change to make any of them better?  The only way which you'll find satisfaction in your photography is if you search for that satisfacion within yourself, and not in the perceptions of others.  Now, if there's something about an image which you're not satisfied with, then there's something which I might be able to help you with."

 al_in_philly's gear list:al_in_philly's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
s_grins
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,162Gear list
Like?
Re: Feedback requested. Warning: pictures of kids.
In reply to Pikme, Apr 14, 2013

Pikme wrote:

s_grins wrote:

About the very last shot of the house: why didn't you do it in color? It looks empty, haunted, and condemned...

is there a new rule that all photos of houses have to look cheerful?

-- hide signature --

Roberto M.

I guess this is the house where your kids live.

-- hide signature --

Looking for equilibrium...

 s_grins's gear list:s_grins's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm F4-5.6 OIS Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Micromegas777
Regular MemberPosts: 191
Like?
this is obsolete aestheticism
In reply to tedolf, Apr 14, 2013

tedolf wrote:

JoeNapa wrote:

These are just some pictures of my home and family that I took with my new Em-5 and 12mm lens.  Thanks, Joe.

No. 1:   Feet are chopped off and out of focus.

No. 2:   Table, chair are chopped off-no appearent effort at composition of drawings on wall.

No. 3:   Child in back is out of focus.

No. 4:   Wings are cut off and feet are out of focus.

No. 5:   Adult is chopped in half.

No. 6:  Now this one could be a good photo if you would frame it to eliminate the power lines.  Can be done in PP so this one is salvagable.

These photo's demonstate either a complete lack of understanding of composition or laziness on the photographer's part.

In either case, there is no point in owning a $1,400.00 camera if this is the level of effort you are going to put into your photography.

Other than the out of focus parts of the photo's, you  may as well have a point-n-shoot camera.

TEdolph\

such comments are foolish. This is modern pop art, not Victorian style society photography. Retouche power lines - ridiculous

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Micromegas777
Regular MemberPosts: 191
Like?
tedolf and his pathetic Rokkor 40mm
In reply to tedolf, Apr 14, 2013

artistically a joke, a disaster as a critic

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
HL48
Junior MemberPosts: 35
Like?
Re: Feedback requested. Warning: pictures of kids.
In reply to s_grins, Apr 14, 2013

s_grins wrote:

I Like kids. I do not likes most of the photos.  Most of them are excellent for home use, but not for going public.

About the very last shot of the house: why didn't you do it in color? It looks empty, haunted, and condemned...

-- hide signature --

Looking for equilibrium...

I would say rather that the appeal of all but the last photo is primarily personal. Those that can't share the personal appeal of those photos can only appraise the images' aesthetics. You need to be sensitive to that dichotomy, especially with regard to your audience. The two realms are often have nothing to do with each other.

I agree with s_grins that the house looks haunted and condemned. Further I'll add, that the scene conveys a powerful sense of foreboding.  Both the black & white presentation and the power lines in the picture contribute to that effect. Good job.

Harry

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Hen3ry
Senior MemberPosts: 7,860Gear list
Like?
Re: Feedback requested. Warning: pictures of kids.
In reply to JoeNapa, Apr 14, 2013

Hiya Joe

Some nice pix here -- mostly with minimal stuff required to make them even better (TO MY EYE!).

We should bear in mind, however, that these are record shots so have their own value as such regardless of the niceties of composition.

Looking at your pix, I'm thinking you’re handling the wide angle of view of the 12 very well -- using it constructively but not going over the top with it.

JoeNapa wrote:

These are just some pictures of my home and family that I took with my new Em-5 and 12mm lens.  Thanks, Joe.

Love it. Great capture of the two kids being kids. The sky above the fence is pretty useless -- it doesn’t add anything to the pic. I would suggest you point the camera down just a little to eliminate a bit of the sky and get the complete feet in. Don't point down too much, though -- as it stands, the girls' eyes and waists are pretty much on the third lines and you don’t want to break that up. Maybe also bend the knees (yours!) a little to shoot from a slightly lower viewpoint to get the feet in but avoid losing that "on the thirds" feature. Maybe close down a stop too for a little more sharpness in the shoes (but clearly it is not the brightest day).

I wuld have been tempted to move the table and chairs a little to the right to get them completely into the picture. In addition, just swaying back slightly would have got the top right drawing and the lower right wall painting (LOL) into the picture a little more. But not too much. As it is, you have a nice diagonal eye line running from top right to lower left. Don't want to lost that. I might be tempted to fiddle with the hanging pix. The lower second from right might so on the left of that line when you moved the table towards the center.

Lovely! This is going to be a family keepsake! Maybe a higher ISO and taking advantage of the IBIS (you do have the OMD after all!) would allow you to stop down a bit to get the rear girl in sharper focus.

Love it! The wide angle distortion works fine here. Another family keeper that is going to amuse generations.

The more I look at this picture, the more I see the disembodied legs and feet hanging in the air! Keep it as a trick photo but edit out the legs for general viewing. One trick Ive developed over the years ios to get adults down to child level, squatting or sitting, or bringing the kids up to their level. Not always possible or desirable, however. Just getting them to back out of the pic is often better -- and out meeans a long way to the side with the angle of view you have here..

Doesn’t do anything for me at all, but it will be a valuable hot in 20 years' time, I expect. To get a better record of the house, try going in closer to about the footpath (sidewalk?) and stand on a small ladder so you can get the whole house in without tilting the camera.

Hope this heops! 

Cheers, geoff

 Hen3ry's gear list:Hen3ry's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Atwater
Forum MemberPosts: 80Gear list
Like?
Re: Feedback requested. Warning: pictures of kids.
In reply to JoeNapa, Apr 14, 2013

Hi Joe,
I think you have a promising eye.  IMO, your photos are emotionally evocative, but they're compromised by by some technical errors.  Here are my reactions:

Girls on Bench: This one seems most like a family snapshot, and not knowing the kids, it's the least interesting of the set for me.  If it were mine, I would crop it about 50% (from about waist/knee level to below the horizontal rail and shoulder to shoulder) to put more emphasis on the girls' expressions.  That their feet aren't complete in the original doesn't bother me.

Art Display: I like it as part of the set, but the composition doesn't quite work for me.  I'm sorry I can't say why or offer a suggestion for improvement-- I struggle with composition myself.  I think perhaps if the table weren't cut off just at its edge, the photo would work better... perhaps the same issue exists for the top swag... not sure.

In the Bath: A very sweet moment, and I think the composition works but neither face is in focus.

Butterfly Girl: Another very sweet moment, and it would be a terrific portrait if her eyes were in focus.

Pedal Car: Also an emotionally evocative photo, but again the subject is out of focus.

House: works for me.

I like these photos-- they're better than most family snaps.  Once the technical stuff is under your belt, you'll produce some very fine photographs.

 Atwater's gear list:Atwater's gear list
Lytro Light Field 8GB Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 15,713Gear list
Like?
Re: What is the point of Photography?
In reply to Pikme, Apr 14, 2013

Pikme wrote:

I would love to have a real conversation about these things, but without the personal attacks and not in this thread.

But briefly I was trying to make a couple of points:

- the 'rules' that you speak of are meant to provide a 'safe' photo, 'safe' because the 'rules' are normal artist techniques to ensure a sense of balance and structure for the viewer, and protect against causing unintentional unease or tension by having a crooked horizon, chopped off appendage at the joint, missing body part, running animal about to run out of the frame, etc.

Seems like so far we agree.

But what if you want to create some drama or unease in the viewer for your purpose?

Well, most people would say that the Sistine Chappel or the Last Supper or Rembrant's work are dramatic.

Maybe there is a reason why those artistists used, and in Davinci's case invented compositional rules.

Well, those 'bad' things become tools for the artist to use -

If they know what they are doing.

Are you putting the OP in that class?

that is what I mean by learning the effects and then using them.  Perhaps I am not using the correct technical word to call them 'effects'

Correct, you are not.

but hopefully you can understand what I mean.

Only vaguely.

- how can you know that he meant to make ordinary portraits that follow the ordinary portraits rulebook?

I don't know what he meant to do, only what he did do.

On the 'what makes a good photo' thread in this forum, I mentioned some artists whose work would be ripped to shreds in these forums.  One example is Bruno Quinquet's Salaryman Project - an entire body of work where the faces are intentionally obscured to protect the privacy of the individual.  Yet the work is very personal, moving, powerful, evocative, emotional, etc.

In your oppinion.

Some people think it is junk.

They are beautiful portraits without recognizable faces - what set of 'rules' did he follow?

- these forums have an incredibly narrow set of 'rules' that all photos are supposed to follow - but in the real world, there are no such limitations.

There are definately limitations in the real world.

Try entering a photo contest or creating work for a paying client.

I could post hundreds of amazingly good photos by famous and not so famous artists that break all these 'rules' - many that most people would recognize but have forgotten that they didn't follow the 'rules'.  I just wish more people would spend half as much time in the library or at galleries or museums looking at modern and historical photography as they spend on these forums.  It would be educational and so liberating.

Well, as I said sometimes famous artist creat crap.

Let me rephrase that, a lot of time famous artists create crap.

-  so often people get bogged down with trifling details

Trifling details?

Like keep the horizon level?  Don't chop off apendages thoughtlessly? Maybe follow some rules of composition?

that do not matter at all, such as 'blown' specular highlights.

No one is talking about that here.

We are talking about really basic stuff.

I suggest that your comments about some of the OOF items in his pictures are along those lines - not every photo has to have every inch of the subject in sharp focus --- really, who the heck cares about the OOF feet in picture #4??  The point of interest is the face, not the knitting details of the child's socks!

the problem is that in every photo the subject has OOF parts.  That is because the OP has his lens set wide open for every shot because he thinks that is the way to do it; not because it has any relationship to the subject or the theme of the photo.

- my favorite photos of my own children and friends are generally the least technically 'good' pictures I take, because they are done spur of the moment to capture a special emotion or time or place.

there is no reason why you can't take a well composed photo "on the spur of the moment" if you do some self training.

Everyone (meaning family and friends) loves those pictures because they do capture a fleeting moment of great emotion ---- no one ever looks at a photo with great emotional content and then remarks about the OOF left toe or the missing elbow on the right side!  That's what I meant by sometimes missing the point.

Well, why not take them properly?

-- hide signature --

Roberto M.

Tedollph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 15,713Gear list
Like?
One Man's obsolete aestheticism is......
In reply to Micromegas777, Apr 14, 2013

Micromegas777 wrote:

tedolf wrote:

JoeNapa wrote:

These are just some pictures of my home and family that I took with my new Em-5 and 12mm lens.  Thanks, Joe.

No. 1:   Feet are chopped off and out of focus.

No. 2:   Table, chair are chopped off-no appearent effort at composition of drawings on wall.

No. 3:   Child in back is out of focus.

No. 4:   Wings are cut off and feet are out of focus.

No. 5:   Adult is chopped in half.

No. 6:  Now this one could be a good photo if you would frame it to eliminate the power lines.  Can be done in PP so this one is salvagable.

These photo's demonstate either a complete lack of understanding of composition or laziness on the photographer's part.

In either case, there is no point in owning a $1,400.00 camera if this is the level of effort you are going to put into your photography.

Other than the out of focus parts of the photo's, you  may as well have a point-n-shoot camera.

TEdolph\

such comments are foolish. This is modern pop art, not Victorian style society photography. Retouche power lines - ridiculous

is another man's degenerate Pop Art.

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 15,713Gear list
Like?
Tedolf may be pathetic......
In reply to Micromegas777, Apr 14, 2013

Micromegas777 wrote:

artistically a joke, a disaster as a critic

but his Rokkor 40mm is awsume, as are all his manual focus lenses:

Indeed, you should fall down and worship before them!

TEdolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Pikme
Senior MemberPosts: 1,469
Like?
Re: What is the point of Photography?
In reply to tedolf, Apr 15, 2013

tedolf wrote:

Some people think it is junk.

Try entering a photo contest or creating work for a paying client.

Let me rephrase that, a lot of time famous artists create crap.

ok, now I understand the limitations of any discussion we could have.  We are speaking from two different views of what is a 'good photo'.

-- hide signature --

Roberto M.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads