Quite Possibly One Of My Best Pictures Yet!

I don't visit this forum a lot because most of the time it is pretty boring but I do once a week or so and then I pick out a few posts that look promising based on the title.

But when I opened this thread the first thing I thought was "this guy must be joking". I'm an amateur and don't inspire to be or become a pro but this image would most likely go in the bin for me and not just because it's out of focus.

The image doesn't tell enough of a story and the highlights behind the guy are a bit of a distraction. I also find it too warm looking although it must be pretty cold looking at the guys jacket. The image would be more interesting if you could see what he was doing [and not just taking a photo] but also of what. Or if the photo was taken from an unusual angle.

I agree with the general remark here that the image is just a snapshot and not a good one either. I take a dozen of these at every camera club outing and most are never shown to anyone else. Calling this your best photo ever is doing yourself short.

If you want to avoid all the remarks you're getting in this forum think about what you are posting for a minute, think about what you are trying to achieve with the post and then choose an appropriate title. If you had called it "My friend X taking a photo" I wouldn't have opened it and you wouldn't have gotten this reply of me saying that I think it is a bad photo not worth sharing with the community.

aus_pic_hunter said:

The image doesn't tell enough of a story and the highlights behind
the guy are a bit of a distraction. I also find it too warm looking
although it must be pretty cold looking at the guys jacket. The image
would be more interesting if you could see what he was doing [and not
just taking a photo] but also of what. Or if the photo was taken from
an unusual angle.

If you want to avoid all the remarks you're getting in this forum
think about what you are posting for a minute, think about what you
are trying to achieve with the post and then choose an appropriate
title. If you had called it "My friend X taking a photo" I wouldn't
have opened it and you wouldn't have gotten this reply of me saying
that I think it is a bad photo not worth sharing with the community.

Click to expand...

I've thought about fixing that background with the clone tool, because someone esle mentioned doing that as well.

On the bright side, if I had named this thread appropriately, I wouldn't have got such strong comments/feedback from the community. I've learned my lesson the hard way, I won't repeat this mistake again. And my Flickr view count has inadvertedly doubled in the process, which at least gives me an idea of which pictures suck and which don't! So in two ways I've gained feedback, directly and indirectly.

Back to the drawing board...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kennyschabow/

KennyS said:

aus_pic_hunter said:

The image doesn't tell enough of a story and the highlights behind
the guy are a bit of a distraction. I also find it too warm looking
although it must be pretty cold looking at the guys jacket. The image
would be more interesting if you could see what he was doing [and not
just taking a photo] but also of what. Or if the photo was taken from
an unusual angle.

If you want to avoid all the remarks you're getting in this forum
think about what you are posting for a minute, think about what you
are trying to achieve with the post and then choose an appropriate
title. If you had called it "My friend X taking a photo" I wouldn't
have opened it and you wouldn't have gotten this reply of me saying
that I think it is a bad photo not worth sharing with the community.

Click to expand...

I've thought about fixing that background with the clone tool,
because someone esle mentioned doing that as well.

On the bright side, if I had named this thread appropriately, I
wouldn't have got such strong comments/feedback from the community.
I've learned my lesson the hard way, I won't repeat this mistake
again. And my Flickr view count has inadvertedly doubled in the
process, which at least gives me an idea of which pictures suck and
which don't! So in two ways I've gained feedback, directly and
indirectly.

Back to the drawing board...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kennyschabow/

Click to expand...

Kenny,

I am glad to hear that you got something positive out of this experience. In the end we are all still trying to improve our skills and knowledge.

I have gone through that experience as well. Not here but in photo competitions. I put in a landscape photo that I was really proud about and the judge didn't like it at all. Also a 1 meter long, beautifully done pano from someone else didn't get a mention. After analyzing what I did wrong I came to the conclusion that the judge was looking for creative images. Technically perfect landscapes and panos were not what he was looking for.

So in the end, if you are happy with it then that is ok but you can learn from others who look at the image differently to improve it further.

But in teh future be careful when you make bold claims. You may set expectations too high and you will be battered.

Good luck.

If a photographer is taking a picture for their own enjoyment, then why does it have to have a purpose? Isn't it just enough that THEY like it?

Yes. The image IS out of focus. But so what? If he likes it, that's all that should matter.
--
~~**~~
Brenda

As everyone explained, if you post a thread on a board with the title that screams for attention, what do you think would happen?

And it's perfectly fine to critique; that's how we learn. Buck up, grow some skin, and take it if you ask for it; otherwise you could always join a convent or monastery.

because he felt the need to share it with the world ;-)

if it was for "their own enjoyment" this lame thread would never have happened and the OP would have printed it out, framed it and hung it in the living room (for local folks to shake their head at) ;-)

either way it's a photo that is painful to the eyes... doesn't mean the OP can't "enjoy it" for whatever reason.

azphoto said:

If a photographer is taking a picture for their own enjoyment, then
why does it have to have a purpose? Isn't it just enough that THEY
like it?

Yes. The image IS out of focus. But so what? If he likes it,
that's all that should matter.
--
~~**~~
Brenda

Click to expand...

The problem is that someone liking an image is not a reason for everyone else to like it too, and to say nothing bad about it when it is posted for a critique. A purpose of a critique is to explain what is wrong with the image and how to make it better next time. It is not to do the "self-esteem" hit by telling the shooter that the image is excellent and to keep trying the same thing.

--
http://www.pbase.com/arshutterbug/

azphoto said:

Yes. The image IS out of focus. But so what? If he likes it,
that's all that should matter.

Click to expand...

You should tell him that. He's the one who posted it for others to critique.

--
http://jackandkelly.zenfolio.com/
30D, 40D, 10-22mm, 28-135mm, 50mm/1.8II

As you point out, had you not used the subject line you did, it probably would not have gotten much response at all. And in the end, that would have been a worse outcome.

If you're interested, you might think about visiting the CSLR Challenges. It's fun to participate or just to "lurk".

I've noticed that it's sometimes very easy to tell if a shot I've entered is worth a darn to others. We can see the "hit counter" for each shot separately the way it's done, and each shot gets to have its own commentary thread.

So it's very informative to see what other people like or don't like, and hopefully hear why.

As many have pointed out here, shots that we personally like may well have no meaning to other people. If we don't know the person in the shot, and were not there to experience the actual circumstances and moment, then a capture of that moment may hold very little interest.

So for a shot to be one that really "grabs" other people requires different things than a shot that is meaningful to us (or our families and friends, etc.).

A shot posted for strangers to evaluate will end up needing to stand all on its own with no context at all.

This is a problem we all have shooting pictures. It may be the difference between a "snapshot" and a great photograph.

I've often felt that live-view is a good tool, in a way, for discerning this difference. Many times I've seen an eagle by the side of the road, stopped the car, got out, and hoped to get a good shot of it. And often, I've taken a shot or two, thinking how nice the scene looked.

Then, when I get a chance to review the shots, the eagle is just a small speck in the frame. It looked great to the naked eye, and I even manged to fool myself into thinking that it looked good through the camera viewfinder. But once I saw the actual shot, it was clear that it did not fill nearly enough of the frame. What was a great scene to the naked eye was not a good photograph. So it's taken some experience and effort to force myself to look through the viewfinder and imagine what I'm seeing as if it was a print. I still forget this all too often.

And that's why I think that live-view is often a good tool. You end up seeing the image looking the way it will as a print. The resolution is low and you see the photograph in its entirety, framed in a sense. To me, I can often judge a shot better by seeing a small thumbnail of it than I could if I saw it in full resolution. I can see the overall form and composition better in a thumbnail. I would never take those worthless speck-sized eagle shots if I was judging the shot via live-view

Looking through the optical viewfinder, we can see more as we do with our eyes. Our brains assemble a composite model of what we see as we scan the whole scene. In effect, we see what we want to see.

But the photograph shows only what the camera captures at that instant. That image is totally out of context when viewed later or by someone else. So it must really stand on its own.

A fantastically composed shot or one that captures a moment very well can afford to be out of focus, or blurred, or not technically perfect. But all things being equal, technical merit can add to a shot too.

Anyhow, I think this thread has been harsh, and people can be very mean when they're sitting there, protected behind their computer monitor. But on the other hand, at least you've gotten some honest assessments which, in the end, is probably valuable.

Check out the CSLR Challenges. Here's the current challenge thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=27438619

--
Jim H.

I like it Makes a plesent change from the "tripod mounted lifeless landscapes pics of mountains, rivers, trees" Which frankly anyone can copy the next day.

This is street and focuses on the impact the DSLR is having on the genral public and if the op is happy with it then thats whats its about. The really good photos are the ones people buy,

Though personaly Id P/S the lettering on the camera body to make it sharper as this is the main distraction preventing the viewer from looking around the photo
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/twaca/

I haven't read more than the first few posts on this thread but basically you're getting trashed over the image you posted. That's hard to hear, I know it is.

I say this as a sincere attempt to help you. If you're going to get good at this you are going to have to get used to harsh critiques. My first photo teacher was a jerk, or so I thought, until I took his criticism to heart and I suddenly got much better.

Come here expecting that kind of help.

Long thread, and I really don't understand many of the posts.

It is a shot with a message. I like it because I can read and identify with the message. This is a gear head forum ... too bad that some can't appreciate the art of photography.

It is an unusual shot and worth looking at. I like creativity.

Thanks for posting it and continue with your photography and grow a thick skin!

Not unlike the rest of us, Kenny has a lot to learn. My first reaction to this photo was of its subject matter... To me, it was farily obvious that two guys were out playing with their cameras, and one of the subjects available to shoot was the other photographer. Its happened to every one of us, at some point.

Other than that, the lighting is interesting, the man in the photo has character, and there is even a little eye candy for us gearheads.

It is evident that Kenny is still on the learning curve... shame on you to those who just made fun of him. What kenny should realize from this photo is why he likes it. This is the beginning stages of his personal "style" forming. He likes the rear-lit rim light. He likes the ultra-tight zoom. He might even like a little soft focus.

Going with that, imagine Kenny in 10 years as a wedding photographer. He can take the techniqes that he learned he loves, and make his own unique brand of photos. His clients will one day apply the love that they had for their wedding props to the images of them with the artifacts on the day of their weddings.

KENNY: identify the aspects of this photo that you love (tight crop, rear lit, object of adoration such as an L lens on a ff camera, etc) and photograph each one extensively untill you can make it perfect every time. Combine them all together again, over and over, untill they are perfect every time. Than sell your work and charge an arm and a leg.

--www.richalborn.com

kotsubu said:

Why are people on this forum sometimes such rude jerks? I am not a
pro - only a hobbiest and I don't live on this forum. I just stop by
occassionally so maybe this has just been a recent thing. But I would
be VERY reluctant to make ANY postings because of the kind of
dismissive rude response this poster received.

Craig

Click to expand...

I didn't take it as rude. The image is clearly oof. If you want to put your work out to the entire world, and then narrow it down to photogs (amateur to pro), you'd better come with your best. Otherwise, you're going to get C&C you might not like...

--
Marc Liberts
http://www.santabarbarapix.com

kotsubu said:

Why are people on this forum sometimes such rude jerks?

Click to expand...

nothing rude about what was said. It is a simple and honest photo critique.

quite on the mark too.

what is beyond me is that why can't people like you see it for what it is? an honest photo critique.

should we say it's sharp when it is not? should we say it's interesting when it's not? should we say it's good when it,s not good technicaly?

that would not help anyone improve. If there would be something wrong with my photo and I could post it here, I would appreciate more honesty than lies.

I am not a

kotsubu said:

pro - only a hobbiest and I don't live on this forum. I just stop by
occassionally so maybe this has just been a recent thing. But I would
be VERY reluctant to make ANY postings because of the kind of
dismissive rude response this poster received.

Craig

Click to expand...

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'

if this is your best picture..what are the others? foggy ? this picture has nothing right lol

KennyS said:

There is no "emotional attachment". I honestly think that except for
the slight mis-focus, which I already mentioned in the first post
(thus proving your point wrong) that it is a good photo.

His post wasn't rude. I won't call anyone in this thread overtly
rude, but I don't think everyone has treated the photo fairly. This
wasn't a staged shot, I saw him taking a photo and recognized the
light looked good on him, I aimed, focused, half-pressed the shutter,
and fired. Moments later he moved.

You might argue that it is not good sense to post a photo that isn't
perfectly tack sharp, but my point isn't to show DPR how wonderful I
can focus a picture...

Click to expand...

I think it's more a matter of motion blur than out of focus. I think it's just camera shake.

it'S back lit, the subject looks underexposed and since the light is coming from behind, there are blown out highlights.

Doing a good shot of a back lit subject is difficult and the does not fit to many situations. I think this is not a situation where it fit very well.

Back lit shots are rarely good in my opinion. I sometimes like them when there is like some sort of aura around a subject but it's usualy not very pleasing light.

KennyS said:

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kennyschabow/

Click to expand...

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'

Daniella,

I think the issue was not that my photo was critiqued and that people told me what was wrong, it's in the manner of how they did it.

I did not post this expecting everyone to say "amazing job Kenny!" But I also did not expect people to call it total trash, or tell me that "if this is your best please don't post any more". Those are unnecessary comments. However, this thread has been entirely useful to me, as I pointed out earlier, because I have gotten great feedback on what I did wrong and how I can improve next time.

It's funny, I let the thread go down to page 2 and I wasn't going to reply any more, because I felt the thread had run it's course, but people keep having something to say.

Daniella said:

kotsubu said:

Why are people on this forum sometimes such rude jerks?

Click to expand...

nothing rude about what was said. It is a simple and honest photo
critique.

quite on the mark too.

what is beyond me is that why can't people like you see it for what
it is? an honest photo critique.

should we say it's sharp when it is not? should we say it's
interesting when it's not? should we say it's good when it,s not
good technicaly?

that would not help anyone improve. If there would be something
wrong with my photo and I could post it here, I would appreciate more
honesty than lies.

I am not a

Daniella68313 said:

pro - only a hobbiest and I don't live on this forum. I just stop by
occassionally so maybe this has just been a recent thing. But I would
be VERY reluctant to make ANY postings because of the kind of
dismissive rude response this poster received.

Craig

Click to expand...

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen
'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and
beat you with experience'

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kennyschabow/

sorry no offense..are you on drugs or are you fooling us?

KennyS said:

ARShutterbug said:

Your problem seems to be a lack of focus on the subject. I see no
"nature" in your image, but rather a 5D and what looks like a 70-200
IS lens. A more-appropriate subject could be something about seeing
the image through Canon glass, as I can also see how the person is
looking through a 5D viewfinder.

What I recommend against is getting so excited about an image that
you want to post it for "critiques". If I had seen your example as
part of a relevant album, I would have suggested that it was
excellent footer.

I could stick a silly title on it, and then post it on some classroom
wall for "critiques". The problem is that it means little without
the rest of the album to go with it. If you want to get a single
image that can be interpreted, you must capture the scene and a story
behind it.

--
http://www.pbase.com/arshutterbug/

Click to expand...

I see what you are saying about the context. Perhaps I should have
stated something like "As Michael stopped to take pictures of
flowers, I snapped a photo of him capturing them." However, I
thought the title of the picture, "Capturing Nature", was obvious
enough. The subject is capturing nature, I am capturing him capture
nature.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kennyschabow/

Click to expand...

What exactly in that post leads you to believe that I am using drugs?

Stollen123 said:

KennyS said:

ARShutterbug said:

Your problem seems to be a lack of focus on the subject. I see no
"nature" in your image, but rather a 5D and what looks like a 70-200
IS lens. A more-appropriate subject could be something about seeing
the image through Canon glass, as I can also see how the person is
looking through a 5D viewfinder.

What I recommend against is getting so excited about an image that
you want to post it for "critiques". If I had seen your example as
part of a relevant album, I would have suggested that it was
excellent footer.

I could stick a silly title on it, and then post it on some classroom
wall for "critiques". The problem is that it means little without
the rest of the album to go with it. If you want to get a single
image that can be interpreted, you must capture the scene and a story
behind it.

--
http://www.pbase.com/arshutterbug/

Click to expand...

I see what you are saying about the context. Perhaps I should have
stated something like "As Michael stopped to take pictures of
flowers, I snapped a photo of him capturing them." However, I
thought the title of the picture, "Capturing Nature", was obvious
enough. The subject is capturing nature, I am capturing him capture
nature.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kennyschabow/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kennyschabow/