 Kris Haskins |
contest entry
Thanks,
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
John A. Lind |
Kris, Critiques are always the opine of the viewer; someone else could see this very differently . . . You have a fitting entry for the theme. In printing I would add a little more contrast, but that's based purely on the scan and wouldn't want to lose shadow detail in the print (esp. in hair and eyes). It's a good photograph, but not a spectacular one. Composition of the boy is sound. Looking at the larger (full size) one I like how his head appears sharp while you captured the motion of hands and arms with slight blur. Timing for that was impeccable and it's one of the strengths of this image. The tree in the background is a minor distraction behind his left arm, but not a terrible one. Watch backgrounds as you set up on the subject. This can be very difficult with all the other composition considerations that must be balanced together (your perspective of David is good). Farther to the right would have the ball in the way of his face and farther to the left would have the tree emerging behind his head. Both of those are are clearly worse than what you have here. A little more completeness of the story might be more powerful. A similar action shot that includes the hoop and is otherwise as solid as this one might do that. Even so, you have a decent, solid environmental portrait of David. How many did you shoot of David when making this one? I will often burn a lot of film with different perspectives and compositions as well as repetition to ensure one with good timing (which is excellent in this one). Have you entered a contest like this before? How you fare in the contest is very much dependent on the judge(s) and the other images submitted. In that respect I never worry about win, place or nothing at all. If I like the photograph, that's what counts most (judging that provides a written critique is always helpful). If there is a display of entries, make certain you go see it. Looking at the work of others and analyzing what it is and how it was done is always an education. -- John
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Kris Haskins |
Thank you for your input John. I'm hopeing that the judges will provide the contestants with critiques after the competition, we will just have to see I guess :). I was covering a high school graduation party when I made this exposure. I took a total of 2 pictures of David because I am trying to cut down on 'wasted' film (and I had many subjects who needed my attention before the afternnon was over). I usually only get 6 frames from a 24 exposure roll, and only 4 of those are really nice. Since I started slowing down and _thinking_ before I shoot I've been able to increase those numbers. Oddly enough, the first image had the tree behind his head, and I realized it as soon as the mirror came up. I moved just enough to get it out of the way, without alerting him to my presence (300mm is good for these things). I'm not worried about the contest at all. If I can do well, get a little recognition, and earn my poor lonely website some visitors I will be enormously happy. If not, it isn't a big deal. Photographs are always interpreted by the viewer, and each person is going to feel differently about a given image. I think it was Phil Davis who answered the question, 'what is a good photograph' with, 'one that you like'. You can hate my pictures, it isn't going to hurt my feelings any. In your (or anyone else who wants to answer of course) opinion, what could make this an exceptional portrait? I've just started making portraits of people, and am not too sure what makes a good portrait different than an excellent one. The only thing I can go on is my reaction to the viewfinder's image. I'd like to get the previsualization stage with human subjects, but I don't even know what I want yet. Thank you again for your continued help John!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
John A. Lind |
Starting from the top . . . Candid environmental work like this is not easy. Everything has to come together in one place at one time; lighting, subject, background, etc. You're very dependent on some things you cannot control very well. It takes patience and making shots over time as opportunity arises. The world class pros spend considerable time with their subjects (the very rich and famous) shooting many rolls of film to get one or two superb environmental portraits. Not that the time and cost of doing it that way is feasible for us, but it gives you an idea the extent the pros go to in producing their portraits. I'm not an avid portraitist, but have done a few. For me the two most important aspects beyond general knowledge are lighting and isolation of the subject (and anything directly relelvant to the subject) from everything else in the image. Lighting should be soft and diffused, from slightly above the subject and at an angle off to the side of the camera view, not frontal. Overcast days are often better for this outdoors than clear, sunny sky. Lacking that, open shade can also work. Controlling depth of field with aperture selection can help isolate the subject material from other surroundings that might be distracting. This can easily end up a tradeoff with shutter speed which might be important for other reasons. If you know you're going to spend some time doing candid portraits, clear out objects you can that might be background distractions. Obviously you won't move things like the tree, but you can soften it by getting it out of focus behind the DOF. In familiar surroundings look for vantage points in advance that might be useful from both a light direction and background. This can depend on time of day. Observe common behaviors and habits closely for a while to learn when good decisive moments occur, what leads up to them and the best vantage point for them. When you actually start shooting be patient. There can be times when you'll sit for 20 minutes, never fire a frame and have to wait for another day. With the one of David, the lighting angle looks pretty good. His face has depth to it. Also, it looks like catchlights in his eyes, at least the left one appears to have it. Critical focus is normally on the eyes (window to the soul); the closest one if the face is at an angle. Your angle to him also looks good; I might have kneeled or stooped down as much as possible to get at his level without letting the right arm block his face. You mentioned a 300mm lens. Try working a little shorter and closer in the 100mm to 150mm range if you can do this without engaging your subject. It might let you move around a little more. We don't have any kids, so I'm uploading four photographs. Candids of our cat made over about a one month period. These represent almost 1-1/2 rolls of film. The first two were made using an 85mm lens on an SLR and the latter two with a 50mm lens on a mid-1950's rangefinder (the only lens I have for it; can't afford the extreme cost of other lengths). Look at light direction, depth of field and where critical focus is. See which ones you like best and then think about why. Also look for the flaws; there are some in each of them. Keep shooting and analyze your own work the same way. Experience at doing it, analyzing results and experimenting to see what happens will improve images and ultimately your yield. Hope this helps some,
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
|||||||||||
