Is this bad and if so why?

ROFLMAO

Area 1 3 2 5...

It's almost as if the focusing wasn't center weighted or otherwise on the girl/woman. I think the composition could have its own story. I'd have shot with a longer DOF I think.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #2381048
ROFLMAO

Area 1 3 2 5...

Hey, it's a lot easier than typing "and the part over by the thing, kind of on the right side and sort of near the bottom but not really".

Rad

i voted bad as the girl is to soft and carn't relate to what she is doing /looking at.
Rob.

Good analysis Matt/Rad ...I don't agree that you have captured what for me is the most important aspect of this shot I may be wrong, but for me it is so.

I voted "bad" - while I don't mind OOF images (as long as the subject's still clearly identifiable) the background is a bit distracting here because it seems brighter and more in-focus.. I chose "bad" over "indifferent" because this is one I probably would have binned in my own pp process unless there was something extra I was going for in it I just find the OOF-ness and background distracts me from what I presume to be the subject (the girl) a bit too much.

.02

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Bad

condyk wrote in post #2381228
Good analysis Matt/Rad ...I don't agree that you have captured what for me is the most important aspect of this shot I may be wrong, but for me it is so.

Hmmm,

You know, I think that you have really hit the nail on the head there. YOU were there. You know what you were feeling/thinking at the time and as a result, the photo evokes those feelings/thoughts. For me, I really don't feel much from the shot - so my critique looked at the technical factors of composition.

If I may be allowed to offer a bit of opinion here. As I thought about what you said above - and I pondered why that is so, and I think that I arrived at a way to describe what makes a photograph great.*

A great photograph is one that can evoke the same memories in a person who was not there as it does in a person who was.

I think my favorite photograph of all time is the Life cover on VJ-Day by Alfred Eisenstaedt.** Just one look at that shot an I KNOW what VJ-Day was all about, even though I was born years later. (The same moment was also captured by Lt Victor Jorgensen of the U.S. Navy, but I perfer the Eisenstaedt version.)


So for your shot, I think that because you were there and have the memories "pre-loaded", the shot works for you. For me, the shot does not pull up any archetypal memories/thoughts/feel​ings and the technical reasons are why.

Rad

* I think I've taken three great ones, and I don't remember the other two.

** EXCELLENT article on what makes a photograph great from a journalism perspectiveFOUND HERE, along with LOTS of examples.

Ok, that is very good ... sounds good anyway. Now, I agree with you 110% that the elements don't work. I was MF-ing with a Zeiss 135mm and missed focus ... which is easy to do with the crummy focus screens you get inCanon consumer bodies.

BUT, beyond all the technical issues, mainly related to the focus on boxes bottom right as you say, my sense is that there is some valuable emotional content there that pulls me in. There is a depth to her that seems to be captured. She is there but clearly (to me!) thinking of something else. She is looking at something but nothing of importance really. I wonder what she is thinking? I find that wondering more interesting than the technical errors. It is the emotion there that draws me.

Doesn't imply I am right in my perception. I wanted to see if others saw the same and I knew few would. That's just how it is. We all look for certain things depending on how we are trained to see.

So, what does that really mean? Is there an implicite connection to the subject that rides roughshod over convention? Not for me, even tho' I was there. If we're looking for elements to fit like a jigsaw then we won't see the intangiable. Is the intangiable any more than a projection? I dunno. There is something I like about this shot. There is a lot I don't like and I wish I had focused it better, but there you are

Now I am waiting for someone to come along and post, "Damn Philosophers"

Radtech1 wrote in post #2381396
Now I am waiting for someone to come along and post, "Damn Philosophers"

Nah man ... but Kev is right. All you guys who voted bad didn't get enough breast feeding

condyk wrote in post #2381413
Nah man ... but Kev is right. All you guys who voted bad didn't get enough breast feeding

Breast or Bottle - it makes no difference.

I've been spending the last 30 years trying to get as much as I can of both!



Rad

I think it is a bad image. I feel the woman is the object of the photo and she is not in focus which pretty much blows the shot for me.

Radtech1 wrote in post #2381427
Breast or Bottle - it makes no difference.

I've been spending the last 30 years trying to get as much as I can of both!



Rad

condyk wrote in post #2381413
Nah man ... but Kev is right. All you guys who voted bad didn't get enough breast feeding

Breast, and I didn't get enough, gotta go find a couple now!

I voted for good....the photographer spotted a lovely young lady that he took a fancy to. The recorded image is the best quality a Holga is able to capture. This is a perfect example of a shot that if you were told it was taken by a famous photographer, people would be fawning over it. There is a whole lot more detail in the photo than you all are letting on. You can clearly tell that the items in the background are Christmas trinkets, you can see that the young lady is very lovely and you can also see that she has something weighing heavy on her mind. Sharp focus isn't everything.