Charles Peterson

[jfrancho]

Take a look at these and tell me what you think; be honest. These were taken with a S500 set to BnW, ISO 400, no flash, macro mode.

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20566695-M.jpg

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20566101-M.jpg

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20565637-M.jpg

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20566712-M.jpg

[Vetteography]

To be honest, I can't say I see either one as appealing. The first one might be more so if I knew the guy, but the second went beyond artsy and into palsey.

[EDIT] You added two more while I was posting! The last one is cool, though I think if you darkened the foreground a bit more, it would be better.

[serissolutions]

These images do nothing for me. In fact these seem pretty bad.
Many people take OOF or blurred images as artistic, but I see nothing that even comes close to that.
The cat picture is ok. Nothing to write home about.

[jfrancho]

Many people take OOF or blurred images as artistic, but I see nothing that even comes close to that.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, explain.

[serissolutions]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, explain.

I often see people take intentionally blurred shots, or they move the camera with a slow shutter setting, or my favorite is when they zoom out with a slow shutter.
Then you get this blurred, or haze/halo effect on the subject.

I dont think these are good shots at all. I am sure there could be some taken like this that are good, I just havnt seen any. Most of the time it is accidental but the photographer passes them off as artistic.

These shots look like this. Just blurred with no realy draw to them.

[jfrancho]

I am sure there could be some taken like this that are good, I just havnt seen any. Most of the time it is accidental but the photographer passes them off as artistic.How do you know this?

[smittymike19]

I often see people take intentionally blurred shots, or they move the camera with a slow shutter setting, or my favorite is when they zoom out with a slow shutter.
Then you get this blurred, or haze/halo effect on the subject.

I dont think these are good shots at all. I am sure there could be some taken like this that are good, I just havnt seen any. Most of the time it is accidental but the photographer passes them off as artistic.

These shots look like this. Just blurred with no realy draw to them.

wow man just say what you mean , no need to sugar coat. i've seen some of your stuff and it is in the same boat, yet no one was this harsh on you. give the guy a break, we are all only having fun here.

[jfrancho]

wow man just say what you mean , no need to sugar coat. i've seen some of your stuff and it is in the same boat, yet no one was this harsh on you. give the guy a break, we are all only having fun here.Thanks, but I think serissolutions and I can handle it without your mediation. We are only trying to open eachothers' eyes to others' work through thoughtful discussion. So please, unless you have something to add about the the original post, keep it to yourself.

[smittymike19]

well i guess i wont stick up for you.

As far as your pictures the only one that is half decent is number one.

[jfrancho]

As far as your pictures the only one that is half decent is number one.Can you elaborate? What half is decent, what half isn't? I am serious, I'd like to know more than "It stinks!," or "Wow, it's cool!"

[smittymike19]

ok here it is as I see it, but this is just my opinion and i aint that good, but I do know what I like.
#1. Its pretty cool. it looks like any number of photos on a bands cd cover (inside). I like the blurred drumsticks. Overall, its cool, but not too original.
#2 I like the composition of it, the blur is TOO much though. a little woulda be better.and the pic woulda worked for me.
#3 looks like an accident. i have a bunch of those if you wanna see them. Compositionally, it doest work for me either. Im just not interested in the shot.
#4. Maybe if the background was a cool city shot, like the cat was looking out at the world or soemthing, it would have worked for me. or if you had a neighbor who loooked like a rugged old guy with a wool hat, or just something interesting out that window, then it coulda worked.

To me good photographs are ones that you wanna look at again. im not sure id reopen these files if they were on my computer. I hope it doesnt sound mean but it is what you wanted. (i think)

[jfrancho]

ok here it is as I see it, but this is just my opinion and i aint that good, but I do know what I like.
#1. Its pretty cool. it looks like any number of photos on a bands cd cover (inside). I like the blurred drumsticks. Overall, its cool, but not too original.
#2 I like the composition of it, the blur is TOO much though. a little woulda be better.and the pic woulda worked for me.
#3 looks like an accident. i have a bunch of those if you wanna see them. Compositionally, it doest work for me either. Im just not interested in the shot.
#4. Maybe if the background was a cool city shot, like the cat was looking out at the world or soemthing, it would have worked for me. or if you had a neighbor who loooked like a rugged old guy with a wool hat, or just something interesting out that window, then it coulda worked.

To me good photographs are ones that you wanna look at again. im not sure id reopen these files if they were on my computer. I hope it doesnt sound mean but it is what you wanted. (i think)No not mean at all. Very insightful.

[smittymike19]

ok this may be somewhat off subject but check out this site for some cool stuff. this site i actually go back and look at. It is successful. Its not of rock bands so I apologize as i realize its not quite thesame subject, but the pics are actually downloaded on my hard drive, and I enjoy looking at them, in case you wanted an example of what i mean by "wanting to go back and look at them".. http://chromogenic.net/

[Steve Parr]

I do a lot of band photography, and one of the bands I shoot often asks me for these types of shots. Personally, I prefer more in focus stuff, but they're the ones footin' the bill.

And, for the record, this guitar player really likes #2...

Steve

[jfrancho]

I do a lot of band photography, and one of the bands I shoot often asks me for these types of shots. Personally, I prefer more in focus stuff, but they're the ones footin' the bill.

And, for the record, this guitar player really likes #2...

SteveThanks, Steve. Do you have any similar pics you'd like to share? I respect your ability, and I would like to see your results, and hear how you got the shots. Feel free to post on this thread.

[jfrancho]

Ok, I want to thank all you that took some time, and posted some good feedback. I want us all to try and make a whole hearted attempt to analyze the photohraphy posted for not only technical merit, but to look deep and ask yourself what you see.

Now, how a about a hand for the photographer, as he demonstrates "proper" point and shoot technique! He graciously allowed me to proxy for these critiques:

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/19198322-M.jpg

And for those that didn't care for his work:

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/19198316-M.jpg

I may dig this thread up from time to time, and keep you apprised of his work. He can sometimes be tough to pin down for a comment though...

[jfrancho]

Some statements related to this post, but originally posted here:http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=71055&page=1&pp=20

Some background: My son has been taking pictures for a couple years now. He is six. It occurred to me that a small digital camera would suit him well. He would be able to use the LCD to compose, see immediate results, all the usual benefits a digicam offers. He has been taking pics with this for about a month. I had been reading the manual and figuring out how to influence the results when it time for rehearsal. My son sometimes pops in the earplugs and joins us. This time he asked if he could take pictures of us playing. I told him as long as he took his time taking them it would be fine.

He is a perfectionist and has a tendency to get frustrated with sloppy results when he doesn't take his time. I set the camera to ISO 400 and turned the flash off and handed the camera over to him. He took a few pictures of us rehearsing before losing interest in his subjects. I notice that he was really concentrating on most of the shots. I assumed he was snapping away like a mad fiend. When he was done, he took off. About three hours later I pulled the files from the card, and low and behold, most of the band photos were pretty good - only 2-3 really bad shots out of a dozen or so.

Turns out when he left the studio, he kept shooting. There were two or three versions of the same shot, each remarkably different. The foot shots are something he does intentionally; imagine taking six rolls of film in to be developed and getting nothing but footage - hence the digital. The one of my foot took him quite a while to get in position for - again, I thought I'd see lots of this shot, but there was only one. For the later shots, he was definitely experimenting. The candle on the table is the last of a bunch that featured it prominently in many locations around the house. The table was the last shot with candle. When I asked him why there weren't any more candle pictures, he told that he liked the ones on the table, and that the others were boring.

I've been looking at blurry kid pics for a couple years now. When I viewed these for the first time, some just stood out. There was something there. I think that there is a lot to learn from his pictures. He sees the whole world in wide angle. There is a tendency to include a lot of information in his pictures. It probably doesn't seem that way to him since his senses are constantly filled with discovery. His approach angles to the subject can be rather harsh. The macaw pic looks highly off balance, yet the subject is fairly vertical. He is little more than three feet tall, so unless he approaches his subject perpendicular to the background, the angles where background lines converge can be severe, and add quite a bit of drama to the picture. I know the light in the pic must have been targeted because he pointed out where his paper rainbow made a shadow on the wall the day before.

Sometimes I think it is ok to deconstruct what our notions of what we think we know in order to find answer to nagging questions. Who knows, you may be inspired by what you find. That was the purpose of this post. Not "trick" you or play a "game". Perhaps I am tired of useless, kissybutt input. I know these aren't prize winning photos. I wondered if the rest of the members would see what I saw in them.

My son asked if I was going to put them on the computer and "talk" about them on the computer. I received his ok, and went ahead and posted. I don't usually put any details about the pics I post because I'm not always sure what relevance my goals with the photo have to do with your input. I mean, when you go to an art gallery, Vinny VanGogh or Sal Dali ain't there to tell you that they did their best work after a psychotic fit or a big beer s**t. The point is to get you to recognize what you see with own eyes, how that image makes you feel, and in the case of this forum, what special knowledge you are willing to share that you think may improve that image.

I figured that most of the members of this forum would be smart enough to what these were, and comment accordingly. Hmmm? That may sound like an insult, but if the shoe fits...

As far as "having no right" to post someone else's pictures, I reserve the right to exert any and all authority over my son's intellectual property.

As far as your cries of outrage, all I can do at this point is to vow full disclosure on future posts.

[RMc]

As far as your cries of outrage, all I can do at this point is to vow full disclosure on future posts.

Cries of outrage?
It all makes perfect sense now, a six year old took them!

Randy

[smittymike19]

Some statements related to this post, but originally posted here:http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=71055&page=1&pp=20

Some background: My son has been taking pictures for a couple years now. He is six. It occurred to me that a small digital camera would suit him well. He would be able to use the LCD to compose, see immediate results, all the usual benefits a digicam offers. He has been taking pics with this for about a month. I had been reading the manual and figuring out how to influence the results when it time for rehearsal. My son sometimes pops in the earplugs and joins us. This time he asked if he could take pictures of us playing. I told him as long as he took his time taking them it would be fine.

He is a perfectionist and has a tendency to get frustrated with sloppy results when he doesn't take his time. I set the camera to ISO 400 and turned the flash off and handed the camera over to him. He took a few pictures of us rehearsing before losing interest in his subjects. I notice that he was really concentrating on most of the shots. I assumed he was snapping away like a mad fiend. When he was done, he took off. About three hours later I pulled the files from the card, and low and behold, most of the band photos were pretty good - only 2-3 really bad shots out of a dozen or so.

Turns out when he left the studio, he kept shooting. There were two or three versions of the same shot, each remarkably different. The foot shots are something he does intentionally; imagine taking six rolls of film in to be developed and getting nothing but footage - hence the digital. The one of my foot took him quite a while to get in position for - again, I thought I'd see lots of this shot, but there was only one. For the later shots, he was definitely experimenting. The candle on the table is the last of a bunch that featured it prominently in many locations around the house. The table was the last shot with candle. When I asked him why there weren't any more candle pictures, he told that he liked the ones on the table, and that the others were boring.

I've been looking at blurry kid pics for a couple years now. When I viewed these for the first time, some just stood out. There was something there. I think that there is a lot to learn from his pictures. He sees the whole world in wide angle. There is a tendency to include a lot of information in his pictures. It probably doesn't seem that way to him since his senses are constantly filled with discovery. His approach angles to the subject can be rather harsh. The macaw pic looks highly off balance, yet the subject is fairly vertical. He is little more than three feet tall, so unless he approaches his subject perpendicular to the background, the angles where background lines converge can be severe, and add quite a bit of drama to the picture. I know the light in the pic must have been targeted because he pointed out where his paper rainbow made a shadow on the wall the day before.

Sometimes I think it is ok to deconstruct what our notions of what we think we know in order to find answer to nagging questions. Who knows, you may be inspired by what you find. That was the purpose of this post. Not "trick" you or play a "game". Perhaps I am tired of useless, kissybutt input. I know these aren't prize winning photos. I wondered if the rest of the members would see what I saw in them.

My son asked if I was going to put them on the computer and "talk" about them on the computer. I received his ok, and went ahead and posted. I don't usually put any details about the pics I post because I'm not always sure what relevance my goals with the photo have to do with your input. I mean, when you go to an art gallery, Vinny VanGogh or Sal Dali ain't there to tell you that they did their best work after a psychotic fit or a big beer s**t. The point is to get you to recognize what you see with own eyes, how that image makes you feel, and in the case of this forum, what special knowledge you are willing to share that you think may improve that image.

I figured that most of the members of this forum would be smart enough to what these were, and comment accordingly. Hmmm? That may sound like an insult, but if the shoe fits...

As far as "having no right" to post someone else's pictures, I reserve the right to exert any and all authority over my son's intellectual property.

As far as your cries of outrage, all I can do at this point is to vow full disclosure on future posts.
huh? what am i missing here? where are these foot shots? i missed the point here.

[jfrancho]

huh? what am i missing here? where are these foot shots? i missed the point here.Perhaps this will help: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=71055&page=1&pp=20

[Andy_T]

JF,

I like the first 3 photographs ... wouldn't frame them and put them on the wall, but wouldn't delete them from my harddisk either :D

'Artistic or coincidence' is very often really in the eye of the beholder. If you like them, it's good, if you don't, just take some more pictures.

I think it's a good thing you encourage your son to take pictures. My 2-year old also quite vehemently demands the right to use my G2 now I have my 20D, but I think it's still some time :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[jfrancho]

Thanks, Andy. I am going to frame the first one, for my son. I have very few pictures of myself playing, and this one seems to capture it pretty well.