Footage

[jfrancho]

Please be honest, tell me what you think of these. They were taken with a S500, BnW, ISO 400, macro mode. Look hard before you comment.

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20566005-M.jpg

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20566018-M.jpg

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20566010-M.jpg

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20566832-M.jpg

[dharris]

Please be honest, tell me what you think of these. They were taken with a S500, BnW, ISO 400, macro mode. Look hard before you comment.



Band practice hugh?

[Michaelmjc]

A foot obsession?

[O/confusion]

Please be honest, tell me what you think of these. They were taken with a S500, BnW, ISO 400, macro mode. Look hard before you comment.

These are really quite intriguing... areas and details that are in clear, sharp focus, yet other parts that seem to be heavily motion blurred. I see multiple highlights in the chrome of the shot with the footpedal, and "ghosting" in some parts of the shot--are these actually multiple exposure images, or have you perhaps done some kind of careful layering in Photoshop to achieve this effect?

Very interesting technique, however it's accomplished; and I like the way you've composed the shots, spatially as well as tonally.

regards,
Terry

[VegasGeorge]

This looks like an example of why one shouldn't smoke that funny stuff before taking pictures and deciding to post them. So, I guess they qualify as art!

PS: Actually, these look a lot like pictures I've "taken" when my camera went off by accident.

[jfrancho]

A few more...

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20566057-M.jpg

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20566708-M.jpg

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/20566715-M.jpg

[jfrancho]

This looks like an example of why one shouldn't smoke that funny stuff before taking pictures and deciding to post them. So, I guess they qualify as art!

PS: Actually, these look a lot like pictures I've "taken" when my camera went off by accident.Are you implying that I was under some influence? I don't even drink alcohol.

[Titus213]

Honestly, I wouldn't save any of them. They all look like shots I've taken while I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with the camera only to discover the 10 second delay is on.....

[jfrancho]

Honestly, I wouldn't save any of them. They all look like shots I've taken while I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with the camera only to discover the 10 second delay is on.....What do you think is wrong with them?

[Titus213]

I think all the 'footage' is oof and blurred in an un-artistic style. I could find nothing in these photos in focus to grab attention and thus viewing focus is lost.

The next three seem to have focus but there is nothing there I find interesting. With the possible exception of the bird. (I am refraining from saying 'I'll give you the bird'). The light play in that one might be workable into something but I would prefer it be straightened.

Bottom line - they all look like accidental shots. And with auto-focus off in the first four. Exposure levels seem good though.

[jfrancho]

With the possible exception of the bird. (I am refraining from saying 'I'll give you the bird'). The light play in that one might be workable into something but I would prefer it be straightened.So there is something you like. It's way too easy to say "nice pic," or "that sucks," and click submit, never having to explain yourself. I've been guilty of it in the past. Thanks for the input.

[Titus213]

So there is something you like. It's way too easy to say "nice pic," or "that sucks," and click submit, never having to explain yourself. I've been guilty of it in the past. Thanks for the input.

I've noticed a lot of that here. It doesn't help those who really want to improve and know why....I do.

I hope you don't mind this - I'll take it down if you would prefer...

[jfrancho]

No, leave it up. I was thinking a high contrast version would be interesting. You were able to retain the creepiness of the scene, while straitening the image. I agree the lighting is the attraction in this shot. And you can't help but be drawn to the bird.

[embdaw]

I think the bird image is the only one with potential...the high contrast version really brings it out....the rest, however, just look like someone playing with a new camera..testing out the settings...

[jfrancho]

I think the bird image is the only one with potential...the high contrast version really brings it out....the rest, however, just look like someone playing with a new camera..testing out the settings...The settings for all of these were the same and they were deliberate.

[eljustino]

I didn't like any of the "footage". I've taken some "messy" pictures with a Casio watch camera which I would say were better (16 shades of grey, 128x128 pixels!).

BUT... in the second batch I like the first and last of the 3 pix, and I like what Titus has done with the contrast. What I like about them is the subtlety of tone and "extra information" that is there when you look for it.

[JMAS]

Actualy, I like the parrot one, but with the leanning.
As for contrast, I think I would like it better with a litle less than what Titus tried.

The high contrast works better on the straightened photo.

My € 0,02.

[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...

[Steve Parr]

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

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


Dude, that's just classic, man...

Steve

[fetching]

i'm not really sure why you feel compelled to try to fool people, you did the same routine over here.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=71048


why not just say you are posting them for a kid who took them? personally i think it's a little lame.

[embdaw]

Not to sound rude, even though it probably will...but just because a kid took the pics doesnt make them good....


The pics displayed, all except for the bird image which I noted before, are equivalent to when an artist throws buckets of paint on a canvas and calls it art...sorry....but you want all of us to find some deep philisophical meaning in the pics that you presented...


I just find that preposterous

[jfrancho]

i'm not really sure why you feel compelled to try to fool people, you did the same routine over here.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=71048


why not just say you are posting them for a kid who took them? personally i think it's a little lame.I was looking for real criticism. What do you care, you had nothing to say anyway? Thanks for the advertisement though.

[jfrancho]

Not to sound rude, even though it probably will...but just because a kid took the pics doesnt make them good....


The pics displayed, all except for the bird image which I noted before, are equivalent to when an artist throws buckets of paint on a canvas and calls it art...sorry....but you want all of us to find some deep philisophical meaning in the pics that you presented...


I just find that insultingI asked you to look hard, and tell me what you thought.

[jfrancho]

Not to sound rude, even though it probably will...but just because a kid took the pics doesnt make them good....


The pics displayed, all except for the bird image which I noted before, are equivalent to when an artist throws buckets of paint on a canvas and calls it art...sorry....but you want all of us to find some deep philisophical meaning in the pics that you presented...


I just find that preposterousYou've edited your response.
Jackson Pollack, preposterous?

[fetching]

I was looking for real criticism. What do you care, you had nothing to say anyway? Thanks for the advertisement though.


what does posting someone else's images as your own have anything to do with with real criticism?

you make no sense.

i did have something to say about the images until i realized that you were looking for some very specific responses, and i wondered what was up because i recalled seeing you post some other similar black and white work the other night and asking just about the same thing. i went and looked at your prior threads and realized you were basically playing some sort of game.

you want real criticism? post YOUR OWN PHOTOS. if the kid wants criticism on HIS pics, have the courtesy and respect to let him post and ask us for himself.

if you can't do that, you don't deserve anyone's time or effort.

[jfrancho]

what does posting someone else's images as your own have anything to do with with real criticism?

you make no sense.
for him.
i did have something to say about the images until i realized that you were looking for some very specific responses, and i wondered what was up because i recalled seeing you post some other similar black and white work the other night and asking just about the same thing. i went and looked at your prior threads and realized you were basically playing some sort of game.

you want real criticism? post YOUR OWN PHOTOS. if the kid wants criticism on HIS pics, have the courtesy and respect to let him post and ask us for himself.

if you can't do that, you don't deserve anyone's time or effort.It was his request to put them up. I made no claims that they were my own. My input to them was to merely set the camera up for him. And like I said, I would keep you all apprised of his progress. Clearly you didn't look hard enough for my posts, since I have posted many (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/search.php?searchid=163710).

[dkord]

I think it's human nature to not respond to a pic unless it strikes a cord. Especially in a photo sharing forum. Some people may not have anything to say, even if the image is good. There is no requirement either way right? There's no share agreement that a person have to respond to postings in order to belong to the site.
You will probably will get better input if you post pics in the "Critique Corner". Sometime self explanation of your construct and attempt will also bring out some response.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

[JMAS]

I'm offering more € 0,02. ;)

For me, a photo is good or bad, regardless of who took it.
Photography allows one person to share the way he looks at things.
I found that my six years old nephew has a beautiful way of looking at things. He also is unaware or doesn't care what others usualy like to see in a photo, so he chooses what he finds interesting. Then asks for opinion and improve the way of capturing.

At first he took many photos of he's feet. :)
But once pass that initial experimentation phase, he got interested to capture the detail in the scratched paint of a boat, the flower that shines more to him, the horse, the pilars of a bridge or the sand and water on the beach.

So, when I go out to shoot, I take him along and he carries the A70.
He has amazed me many times, either by the angle or by the subject he finds of interest.
He has also learnt that while taking photos, one can't be showing them all the time, so he goes and shoots and after some time he comes back and shows me. We discuss and I let him know what I like and why (in very simple terms).
He looks at my photos and many times he helps me choose the approach.

Then we go home I process some of the photos, print and he takes them home and to school.

That's photography for me. Sharing images of life, while living it, and having fun as much as possible.

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y5kkzk&outx=760&quality=70&original=1&noresize=1&nostamp=1

[O/confusion]

i'm not really sure why you feel compelled to try to fool people...why not just say you are posting them for a kid who took them? personally i think it's a little lame.

And I think that an image is an image is an image, and that appraisal of its visual qualities should not be contingent on knowledge of the photographer. The poster made no claim to have taken these shots himself-- all he asked was that people give some genuine and considered feedback on what they were being shown; personal taste is not and should not be the criterion of intelligent, informed criticism.

Is it ever acceptable in a civilised society to tell anyone--let alone a child--that his/her photographs "suck", or that they should look more like the images that we would have made (but didn't!), or to simply dismiss them out of hand because they don't conform to our preconceived notions of what a "proper" image should look like?

Perhaps it would be more useful--for the poster as well as for the development of our own analytical skills--if we pretended all the shots posted to the forum were taken by children experimenting; maybe then we'd be more inclined to be considerate and constructive, and to think carefully before we respond.

regards,
Terry

[O/confusion]

I'm offering more € 0,02. ;)

For me, a photo is good or bad, regardless of who took it.
Photography allows one person to share the way he looks at things.
I found that my six years old nephew has a beautiful way of looking at things. He also is unaware or doesn't care what others usualy like to see in a photo, so he chooses what he finds interesting. Then asks for opinion and improve the way of capturing.

At first he took many photos of he's feet. :)
But once pass that initial experimentation phase, he got interested to capture the detail in the scratched paint of a boat, the flower that shines more to him, the horse, the pilars of a bridge or the sand and water on the beach.

So, when I go out to shoot, I take him along and he carries the A70.
He has amazed me many times, either by the angle or by the subject he finds of interest.
He has also learnt that while taking photos, one can't be showing them all the time, so he goes and shoots and after some time he comes back and shows me. We discuss and I let him know what I like and why (in very simple terms).
He looks at my photos and many times he helps me choose the approach.

Then we go home I process some of the photos, print and he takes them home and to school.

That's photography for me. Sharing images of life, while living it, and having fun as much as possible.

[img]http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y5kkzk&outx=760&quality=70&original=1&noresize=1&nostamp=1[/
img]

Sorry, Jaime--

I just posted a reply in much the same vein as yours before I saw it I (I got sidetracked while writing). I am in complete agreement with you. My autistic daughter has taught me over the years just how little a fraction of our creative capacity most of us are tapping into, and how much of that is due to our blinkering notions of what things "ought" to look like.

Keep encouraging your son's personal exploration of his world and his vision.

regards,
Terry

[JMAS]

Sorry, Jaime--

I just posted a reply in much the same vein as yours before I saw it I (I got sidetracked while writing). I am in complete agreement with you. My autistic daughter has taught me over the years just how little a fraction of our creative capacity most of us are tapping into, and how much of that is due to our blinkering notions of what things "ought" to look like.

Keep encouraging your son's personal exploration of his world and his vision.

regards,
Terry

Terry,
I read your post only now and also understood your point. I fully agree.
People are so different and yet some try to standardise all around.
Richness is in the diversity of thought and expression, either through my nephew's eyes or your daughters smile.
We must respect the difference in each other, and if possible, try to enjoy it as much as we can. Creativity and progress comes from this liberty of interpreting life regardeless of age or other bounding factors.

Thank you for sharing your view and feelings.

[fetching]

And I think that an image is an image is an image, and that appraisal of its visual qualities should not be contingent on knowledge of the photographer. The poster made no claim to have taken these shots himself-- all he asked was that people give some genuine and considered feedback on what they were being shown; personal taste is not and should not be the criterion of intelligent, informed criticism.




i agree, but you have to admit, he set it up with his preconceived notions in mind, and wanted to test people in some way.

regardless of who took the images he posted, i didn't personally enjoy them. but i probably wouldn't say that to a kid. but that's to be expected, right? i mean, we don't talk to kids the same way as we do other adults, and that's sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing.

[jfrancho]

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.

[Titus213]

...in fact, the rambling comment I had isn't worth the time it will take to post it. It's mind over matter. If you don't mind, it don't matter.