Critique My Photo Please

[catalinajack]

Thank you all for taking the time to provide feedback. To Rick Rycroft and bob wysiwyg, your observations were exactly what I was looking for. In other words, the purpose of the photo was not to create an artistic masterpiece, nor to make a statement of some sort. It was meant to be a starting point for beginning the journey to becoming more proficient in my technique such that I am able to produce photos that have an excellent tonal range. At least according to Rick and Bob, my photo suggests that I may have a good foundation but need to do more work.

One other fellow thought the highlights were blown out. That, I think suggests overdevelopment. I will address this in future test shots of the same subject, in the same light. As far as the sharpness of the photo, yes, I know that if I used a tripod I could, of course, get a sharper image but I was taking a test shot, I wasn't concerned with absolute sharpness. And besides, at least in my hands, the print looks damn sharp despite having focused using the rangefinder on my Crown Graphic, 4x5 by the way. I do have a Toyo 45 which I will use for my next test shot just to see if I am able to increase sharpness.

Truth to tell, I am looking to become very proficient, to produce very nice photos that most folks would admire, but not necessarily turn the heads of professionals who have spent a lifetime taking photos. If, along the way I create a few that are really, really nice, all the better. For example, sometime in the next year my wife and I will be moving aboard a 42-foot yacht to live (and travel) full-time. I will be photographing along the way, traveling a good deal of time along America's inland waterways (Ohio River, Mississippi, Cumberland, Illinois, Tennessee, Black Warrior, Erie Canal, Ottowa, Montreal) stopping at small towns all along the way. I foresee many opportunities for interesting subjects. I won't have space for an enlarger but I will be able to develop and scan film for future printing.

For those stunning sunsets and sunrises on the water I will be using a Nikon D800. Yes, I agree, digital is brainless photography from a more technical standpoint but my intent is to document our travels in photography and post representative photos in a blog so that friends and relatives can follow or adventures. But let's all remember that from a compositional standpoint, digital or analog it's the same so let's not look down on our digital friends but I do believe that manipulating images in software is "cheating" of a sort.

Again, thank you for the comments! I will be posting more images for critique.

[catalinajack]

To "chassis", you say that I could increase sharpness by taking at a smaller aperture and faster shutter speed. I understand the smaller aperture, but wouldn't the shutter speed need to then be longer? The image was shot with a 135mm Symmar S at f8 for 1/60 of a second. Next time I will use a tripod and shoot at f16.

[Ken Lee]

"Critique My Photo Please"

You asked

I'd say it's underexposed by at least 1 stop, and subsequently over-developed. Alternately, it's been printed on too-contrasty paper and under-exposed during enlargement. Did you use a condensor enlarger ? That too would explain the tones which are more compressed at the extremes than we might like.

It appears to have been made either at dusk or early morning, but there is less of a natural feeling of light than we would expect.

B&W white film has a wonderful dynamic range. Under soft lighting, we wouldn't see any items in the photo as pure white, for example the rocks along the roadside on the right. I presume the sky didn't appear pure white at the time either.

Below is a slight variation to consider, which mimics a more complete representation of what's probably on the negative. Note the hubcaps, which now look like metal, and the reflection on the chrome bumper above the rear wheel: the tones do not abruptly reach pure white: instead, there is a smooth transition of tones. Same with the mailbox across the street. They feel more like soft sunshine is striking them.

The second photo (on my calibrated monitor anyhow) has a sense of realism or presence, like you're standing there. That's what would look for, when making a test with Large Format equipment. By comparison, the first photo looks a bit gritty.

[Greg Miller]

To "chassis", you say that I could increase sharpness by taking at a smaller aperture and faster shutter speed. I understand the smaller aperture, but wouldn't the shutter speed need to then be longer? The image was shot with a 135mm Symmar S at f8 for 1/60 of a second. Next time I will use a tripod and shoot at f16.

Yes, if you stop down to a smaller aperture, allowing less light to strike the film, then a longer shutter speed is needed in order to let more light reach the film. Thus the recommendation for using a tripod.

But you need to decide what elements within the frame should be sharp, and which should be soft. Then choose an aperture that provides that amount of depth of field. Whether that is f8 or f16, or something else, depends on your artistic vision.

[Michael E]

I am looking to become very proficient, to produce very nice photos that most folks would admire, but not necessarily turn the heads of professionals who have spent a lifetime taking photos.

Then I suggest you start taking real photos. Four years of testing is more than enough. Photography is not only about tones and technique. It's about images. It's about stories. It's about vision. What will be the subject of your images, once you put all that testing to work?

It is easy to take interesting photos of exotic places. People are easy to impress with technical effects. It's a lot harder to show everyday life with plain no-frills photography and still produce images that will hold their own. I will choose an honest picture of a truck in a driveway over an artsy posed shot of a scarcely clad model any time.

Michael

[cosmicexplosion]

it is an absolutly boring photo, as ugly as most modern designs, but i think you have gotten good technical results, nice blacks greys and details.

now why not try and combine an interesting photo with the results you want?

[catalinajack]

Yes, it is a boring photo. I chose the subject for the express purpose of making an image that might have a wide range of blacks to whites such that I could judge my success from a technical standpoint. It seems that I achieved what I was looking for. I have settled on a film choice and developer that I will stick with going forward. Thanks for everyone's help.

[BrianShaw]

I applaud your boring photo. It is much better and more interesting than the very fine images I did not make this weekend because I was too busy to take the camera out of the closet. good work, CatJak... keep it up!

[Peter Lewin]

Can I throw in a question which is relevant to this particular critique? The OP is interested in the technical quality of his negative and his print. Since we are viewing a scanned print, how is it possible to know whether any technical issues are due to exposure, development, printing, or scanning? I would think it is almost impossible to judge because there are too many variables in play. I know from my own experience scanning negatives to post to the forum, the Epson seems to make almost any of my negatives relatively decent. As a quick example, in a number of threads I have images which I took on some never-refrigerated expired in 1983 Tri-X. I guesstimated the ASA for some testing, and when I scanned the negatives, I couldn't reliably say whether 25 or 50 was really correct for the aged film. What I'm getting at is that to ask for a critique of technical issues at any point prior to scanning seems, to me at least, pointless (unless the error is really large). We can critique the image, but not the technical aspects, unless we are critiquing the scanning itself.