Photo Critique: "Planting", Feb 1, 2023

[Vaughn]

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.

Photographs are the polar opposite of inkblots...my opinion, of course.
One of the main purposes of a two-way critique is to find out what those reasons were that lead the photographer to choose to make and present the photograph, how those goals (reasons) were achieved, and where it can go from there. Critique can be a great educational tool. And they bring the photographer in touch with their audience (if one shows one's work, one is putting on a show). If we put our audience to sleep, it is nice to have them be honest enough to tell us instead of thumbs-ups, silence and an occasional snore.

IMO, I think the most daring crop for this particular image would be no crop at all.

[Alan Klein]

Ok. First off only tilt the Front standard for focus adjustment unless your camera lacks front tilt. Using Rear tilt will change the perspective of the vertical objects in the frame. It does not seem to have much affect on this image here, but it can. Always keep the front and rear standards in as perfect alignment as you can. With that said, some cameras cannot get front and rear alignment exactly perfect, but focusing carefully and aperture settings will, hopefully, fill in the gaps where there might be some slight variations in distance between the lens and film plane. Always keep both standards in alignment and level prior to beginning and composing. This is a challenging scene to conquer with a view camera with the intent of getting everything sharp because of the verticality of the foreground fence, flat field and again a vertical object of the house and tree. With a basic understanding of how camera movements affect the sharpness of an image, I can see that this scene really does not lend itself well to using tilt alone to maximize sharpness. The vertical objects of the fence, tree and house will not benefit from using front tilt that much, it will merely push them out of focus as your foreground becomes sharper using tilt. You might get the fence and house in focus together (which is what you seem to have intended to do), but then the field will fall out of focus and the top of the tree will as well. You need to find a combination of tilt and aperture that will yield the sharpest possible image.

As I suspected, the left side of the frame is softer than the right. My guess is one of your standards was swung (in your words twisted) which threw focus off. It's important to make sure everything is centered before starting to compose. It ain't easy and I have made mistakes like this many times. With large format its important to double check everything if you have the time.



Ahhh, this is an area where your emotions and intuition must take over. Do what feels best, not what pondering about it tells you. You composed it this way, so I'm assuming this is how you felt the scene should look. Stick to it.

3. Position of camera. Some commented tha tthe lines in the field don;t line up the best. I agree. IU should have move around more to see if I could have found a better position.

Lesson: I can't be so lazy. I admit especially with LF, after I set up, it's a pain to move around refocusing etc. MF is easier in this respect. But I have to do it if I expect better results.[QUOTE/]

See my response to #2



People like to intellectualize over things, its because they are not truly experiencing the art for what it is and instead trying to put their own spin on it.



Yeah, the vignette might be a bit much. But it's just one version, come back in 5 years and you might edit it a totally different way. It's how you felt at the moment.

John I tried adjusting the swing looking at a flat wall. There was a minor difference in focus between the far left and right sides. But that could be because I was not parallel with the tripod and camera to the wall. I realized that in real life the background is going to be "swung" in many cases, maybe most, regardless of the deviation of the tripod and camera. So one would have to be exactly parallel to get both side focused the same without having to swing the standard.

So is it your practice to adjust the swing all the time to get both the left and right side in focus? Do you only use the front standard? How do you do the swing adjustment?

[Alan Klein]

Regarding tilt, I have asymmetrical on the rear standard and have used that requiring only one tilt after one focus. How do you do tilt with the three iterations using the front standard?

[Alan Klein]

Photographs are the polar opposite of inkblots...my opinion, of course.
One of the main purposes of a two-way critique is to find out what those reasons were that lead the photographer to choose to make and present the photograph, how those goals (reasons) were achieved, and where it can go from there. Critique can be a great educational tool. And they bring the photographer in touch with their audience (if one shows one's work, one is putting on a show). If we put our audience to sleep, it is nice to have them be honest enough to tell us instead of thumbs-ups, silence and an occasional snore.

IMO, I think the most daring crop for this particular image would be no crop at all.

Thanks for your comments. The original layout may have been better actually. I should have gone with it instead of cropping. Often our initial instincts are better. I can often think things to death.

[Alan Klein]

hi h2oman

that's what I was getting at, regarding a statement of intent or some sort of information for the people doing the critique, I found it impossible to critique Alan's image, without information / a conversation (even after the information would be given, maybe to ask things of the presenter). Maybe the reason for things being out of focus, or subtle contrast (except for the clouds) had to do with specifics and there were 4 of 5 or 10 other images in the "series" that were made in a similar vein to let the viewer see it doesn't matter what people do, to build and "tame" and overpower the land with structures, to plant things in the soil, to remove everything from the landscape (subtle out of focus and low contrast tip of the hat to pictorialists might suggest this ) in the end nature takes over everything (bright/crisp contrast in sky, nothing new under the sun ashes to ashes dust to dust &c) ... without any information about the image I've no clue what seed is planted in my mind to see if it germinated and bloomed, I just see another thread with an image and people suggesting crops or camera movements or a different developer or developing /printing technique to use.

I hope this doesn't come off as harsh, that wasn't MY intent, but I would have loved to have known Alan's intent other than I saw a photograph I wanted to take so I set up the camera and took it .

Nothing harsh. It's just that I prefer a sharper edge. just kidding.

Actually, in the end, what the photographer saw, figured, manipulated, envisioned, and intended are really beside the point. A photograph stands on its own. The viewer cannot know what was in the mind of the photographer even if the photographer had something in mind. The viewers see what they see and have to make of it what they make of it.

[jnantz]

Nothing harsh. It's just that I prefer a sharper edge. just kidding.

Actually, in the end, what the photographer saw, figured, manipulated, envisioned, and intended are really beside the point. A photograph stands on its own. The viewer cannot know what was in the mind of the photographer even if the photographer had something in mind. The viewers see what they see and have to make of it what they make of it.

that's not really how a critique typically works ... I guess it is how it works here .. fine by me ...

[tgtaylor]

Regarding tilt, I have asymmetrical on the rear standard and have used that requiring only one tilt after one focus. How do you do tilt with the three iterations using the front standard?

Focus on the far, tilt for the near....do that until both near and far are in focus. I believe that is the recommended procedure for cameras with front base tilt which the MII has and the direct opposite for cameras with front axial tilt. But if you get them mixed-up it will still work.

[djdister]

Okay, keeping mind that this is the LF Forum and not Flickr, here are some thoughts that you can take or leave:
1. the overall composition is nicely ordered, however there is a bit too much sky for my taste
2. the quality of the lighting seems oddly flat, especially given the use of an orange filter
3. this "flatness" of lighting is most prominent on the face of the house, (where one's eyes are drawn by the furrows), which takes away from the usual texture typically seen in very old structures
4. the strongest visual element is the furrows in the center of the photograph, however they are decidedly soft
5. the fencing is sharp but flatly lit and even blends into parts of the foreground, so emphasizing the fence does not have what I think was the desired effect
6. it would be interesting to see this same composition under different lighting conditions (time of day, more clouds, etc)

So that's it, and yes, I'm no fun at parties.

[cowanw]

I want to thank everyone who posted with the thought that the idea of "critique" was different from Photographic 101 instruction. I was a bit depressed after I posted above, feeling that this was going to be, to use Jnantz’s line, just “another thread with an image and people suggesting crops or camera movements or a different developer or developing /printing technique to use.”
I refused to accept that an OP would knowingly post an image for a “critique” that they knew was so faulty that they wouldn’t make a print of it. And yet here we are. This underlines the apparent difference between an on line critique and a one on one Critique. One wouldn’t get very far with an in person Critique if there was no print, much less the very best print of the very best picture you could make.
I would encourage posters to try to keep a distinction between Photo/composition 101 instruction threads and a Critique. This is an evolving concept here, but if there is no difference in practice, what is the need for different titles.
I would suggest Op’s should post their best. Here is a very simple site for posters who wouldn’t read the book.

https://floresphotoclass.edublogs.or...5-10ng3qs.pptx
Please keep in mind that, yes, I may be taking this way too seriously, eh!

[Tin Can]

May I add

If it sells for cash

Consider that





which is why I end up with a print, I made it valuable


money

praise

ethics