Photo Critique: "Planting", Feb 1, 2023

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h2oman

I believe it was in a book by Robert Adams (maybe it came up again in Art and Fear? or maybe that is in fact where I saw it) where he advocated asking three questions: What was the photographer trying to say? Did they succeed? Was it worth saying?

---

I went and found this. Adams, in fact, attributes the questions to Henry James, who I knew nothing about until trying to find the above. I didn't fit it, but found two things of interest, one quite appropriate to this thread:

"To criticize is to appreciate, to appropriate, to take intellectual possession, to establish in fine a relation with the criticized thing and to make it one's own."

"Excellence does not require perfection."

Just remember neither F22 nor f64 are sacred.

Thank you, Henry James!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Klein

Nice shot. What aperture did you use? I used f/22 and probably should have gone to f/32 or 45 especially since the fence was pretty close compared to the house and trees. But frankly, my whole picture was not clear in full pixel resolution so I obviously did something else wrong.

---

Unfortunately I didn't record the exposure for this negative but the film was either Acros or Delta 100 with a 360mm lens. However I did photograph it on a different day with a 4x5 on Tmax 100 with a 210mm lens @ f22-1/3, 1/30 sec so the 810 negative had a similar exposure. Sometimes just taking the camera out of the pack and setting it up on the tripod can induce a slight swing on the rear standard. I've developed the practice of running my thumb across the back to check that the bed is flush - all the way across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnantz

Hi Alan
now that the critique seems to have ended, can you reveal to us why you took the photograph and what you had hoped to achieve, and if this is part of a series what the series is about ? (kind of like a "statement") so people might have a deeper understanding of the image?



or is this the answer to my question ? I get the wanting to photograph things you see just to photograph them, that is a good enough "reason" / "statement" for me if that's it ... my only suggestion is
if you put another image up for critique just post that instead of all the mumbo jumbo about gear and developer and film cause that stuff really doesn't matter as much as the reason . most of the things I make photographs of
are just because I wanted to do them and they don't really have a deeper meaning...

---

That's a very good point about not including the technical details of the photo. I decided that I wanted the critiques to include comments about the process as well as the "art". Some of my errors and ways to improve have to do with setting up a large format camera for example. So including that information would help posters help me. Especially because I'm relatively new to LF. Others could decide for themselves whether to include technical details when they post their photo for critiquing. I'd suggest to the moderators to leave that decision open to the submitter and not formalizing this requirement one way or the other. .

Allen

Keep facts concise, like Joe Friday

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Klein

That's a very good point about not including the technical details of the photo. I decided that I wanted the critiques to include comments about the process as well as the "art". Some of my errors and ways to improve have to do with setting up a large format camera for example. So including that information would help posters help me. Especially because I'm relatively new to LF. Others could decide for themselves whether to include technical details when they post their photo for critiquing. I'd suggest to the moderators to leave that decision open to the submitter and not formalizing this requirement one way or the other. .

---

[QUOTE=johnmsanderson;1670470]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Klein

When you set up your camera, in order to ensure all the camera movements are Zeroed you do the following: for swing focus in the far left and far right of the ground glass and make sure they are both sharp at the same time. If they are not, then adjust your swings so that they are. Repeat this for each set of movements depending on which one your camera has trouble with.

You can visually inspect focus on the ground glass. You must be either focusing inaccurately, your ground glass and film plane are not aligned or your film holders are defective.

At this point just set up your camera and carefully focus on something with a loupe and see if the mid ground is sharp…

---

Thanks. GOod suggestion. I'm going to find a big flat brick wall somewhere and test this out to see if the focus is right on when the standards are in their default position.

One issue I am aware of is the back standard is not perfectly plumb when it's "clicked" into place with the detent. I have to tilt it slightly forward past the detent to get it straight up and down.

Another issue: unfortunately, on my Chamonix, the swings don't have detents at all. It's all visual which would make your test even more important. There are alignment hash marks. But who knows if those were imprinted in the right spots, something I never checked. So it could be my default swing is off on every shot and never truly aligned in parallel on both standards. That means I must start checking both sides when focusing as well as the top and bottom and middle. Sometimes I wonder if I should just go back to medium format and make my life easy. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h2oman

I probably shouldn't wade into these waters, but prudence is not always my strong suit.

I think it is very difficult to experience art for what it is, without putting one's "own spin on it." Everybody brings something with them when they view a photograph. (I'll stay away from art in general, which I know even less about than photography!) If they are photographers, it might be that they approach photography from a more graphical point of view, so they are looking at and responding to light, shadow, form, maybe color. Or maybe they respond to symbolism or "what else it is." Or...

Some people respond more viscerally, some more intellectually.

I find that, with most of the general public that I've talked to about my images, much of their take on a photograph is based on their own experience - they've been to the location, or it brings to mind a time in their life, etc. It's rare that they seem to experience photographs for just what they are.

To repeat myself, I'm appreciative those who have been participating in this thread, and I like the breadth of thoughts volunteered. I once attended a workshop that had a critique component to it, and one of the leaders described proper critiquing in pretty much the form William used - observations about the photo, without judgements. I just re-read his post to help me unpackage it, and will do so again. This statement of his is interesting:

"...require a statement of intent to critique whether a photograph is successful or not."

I believe it was in a book by Robert Adams (maybe it came up again in Art and Fear? or maybe that is in fact where I saw it) where he advocated asking three questions: What was the photographer trying to say? Did they succeed? Was it worth saying? (The last of these always makes me want to throw away all my gear and take up recreational Sudoku. :cool:) But often our photographs are presented in a way that does not allow us to state what we are trying to say, so we have to do the best we can with the photograph itself. I believe that Brett Weston once said something to the effect that he didn't talk about his photographs because the photograph said everything there was to say.

Or maybe we are better off letting the viewer hear whatever they think the photograph is trying to say...

---

Thoughtful comments. Photos are like inkblot images and often look different to each person. But that's OK. Everyone should get their two cents into the mix.

Another thing is that my initial reason to photograph might change once I start editing especially with cropping. But does it matter if the final image did not accomplish why I originally took the shot? After all, life doesn't work that way. Often, we start off on one path only to find another one is better.

Serendipity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Klein

OK I'll be the guinea pig to get this thing started. Critique as you wish.

---

Nope, no critique possible, very nice as it is. Perhaps the blacks could be deeper. And I’d be really excited if it were a wet print with this tonal scale

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Klein

I'd suggest to the moderators to leave that decision open to the submitter and not formalizing this requirement one way or the other. .

---

Agree.