Museum shots...comments please

Ok...don't know what happened here, but the image isn't showing up in Imageshack any more so, I went ahead an re-uploaded it. Hopefully this time it will stick...

Sculptorsam wrote in post #6509945
I don't know if this is relevant to what you're going for (I think the images are beautiful by the way, especially 2 & 4), but I see a relationship between the forms of the statue and the figure in the painting of image 3. They mirror each other, engaging in their own dialogue (which I'm sure was intentional by the museum curators). Perhaps shifting the composition to include the painting, still de-focused, would lead to a nice image giving a sense of the muted drama of the museum installation itself. Just an idea.

I see what you're saying here but I don't think that was intentional on the part of the museum at all as that really only looks like this from this specific angle which was shot from the corner of the room. This statue is again the center piece of this particular gallery and as you enter this gallery from any of the three entrances, the perspective of the statue changes rather dramatically in it's relation to the painting there. In fact if I remember correctly, from this gallery's main entrance the painting would actually be off to the other side of the statue with the two "persons" actually facing away from each other and the entrance to the right of the main entrance, the painting wouldn't be immediately evident at all.

Either way though, I'll keep that in mind next time I shoot this (and I'm sure I will shoot this again! LOL!). There may be something there that I can play with and exploit a little .

Peace,
Jim

Under the circumstances Iw ould say these are very well exposed.

I have learned a lot from your critiques and feel out of line in critiqing you.

Under the conditions I think you have done fantastic with all of them but #3. It has a distracting background where all the others are isolated portriat like. I think Had you moved to your left and crouched you could have removed the painting, covered the plaque on the back wall and put the knee wall at pedistal level (statue feet). This would have changed your perspective somewhat but the clean and undistracting background would have been worth the compramise.

As for the lens ... Looks like a winner!

If you would be shooting for museum literature, I'd do a Custom WB each time you shoot one so there would be consistency in the WB. The older those lights get, the more the WB changes, & the yellower your images become.

Some people swear that AWB is OK outdoors, but I ran a test indoors & have never used it since. Notice that the very last exposure in the 2nd group of tests was of a gray card, & it's way off.
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=54281

Plus, waiting to adjust WB after shooting RAW may be a mistake. Curtis N found that a blown red channel is a problem:
How NOT to expose to the right

neumanns wrote in post #6513051
I have learned a lot from your critiques and feel out of line in critiqing you.

Under the conditions I think you have done fantastic with all of them but #3. It has a distracting background where all the others are isolated portriat like. I think Had you moved to your left and crouched you could have removed the painting, covered the plaque on the back wall and put the knee wall at pedistal level (statue feet). This would have changed your perspective somewhat but the clean and undistracting background would have been worth the compramise.

As for the lens ... Looks like a winner!

First let me say that you should NEVER feel "out of line" critiquing anyone's work here on POTN! Every one is entitled to an opinion, regardless of their level of experience and regardless of if people even agree with that opinion. If you look thru all of my posts, you will find on many topics I'm "the odd man out" as I tend to look at things quite differently than most folks. As I often say to my wife, "Think outside the box? H@ll...I live so far outside the box that half the time I can't even remember where the stupid box is!" LOL!!! Personally I always encourage and expect honest opinions of my work...as you say, that's how I learn. I would add to that however that I've found that I also learn from giving other people critiques as well. I think you'll discover that by critiquing the work of others, you'll find yourself thinking about what's "good" and "bad" in other people's work and thus doing the same more with your own work....and that's usually a good thing .

So whenever you feel you can provide and honest and intelligent opinion or two on my work (something beyond simply "nice work" or "it all just sucks"), ALWAYS please feel free to do so. Even if I don't agree with your opinions, I do make mental notes of them for future reference.

Now as far as the third shot goes...yea...there's some issues there. Considering the responses, the next time I go to shoot this I'll have to pay more attention to this all the way around. Maybe I'll try a couple of different focal length lenses and relevant positions to the statue or something. Again this was shot with a 70-200mm...maybe next time I'll try a wide angle and get in close or something...hmmmm.

Well this isn't actually going to be published or in any literature...that was just the effect that I was trying to create for my own portfolio (and hence the original question). -If- this had of been an actual assignment/paying gig, I certainly would have payed more attention to white balance...although I tend to favor a wb cap over a gray card. But as this was more messing around than anything else...it "is what it is" . Should the CMA ever actually offer to "pay" me for my services, I will certainly keep all of this in mind and/or pay more attention to it later in pp.

Peace,
Jim

OK, then only use your very best shots. I suggest that you don't use shots like 2 & 3 where the eyes are almost black holes?