Photo Critique: "Planting", Feb 1, 2023

[Alan Klein]

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

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52567747891_7c7bfea819_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2o6es1T)Planting (https://flic.kr/p/2o6es1T) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr

Chamonix 45H-1, 150mm, Tmax 400, 4x5", Orange Filter, Epson V850 Scanner, edited in Lightroom

[Ulophot]

Hi, Alan. For me this is a strong composition with a story well-told in the relationships and contrasts among the house and fence, pine tree and clouds, and furrowed field. It asks questions in a good way. Good timing.

The edge and corner darkening, It appears that the edge and corner darkening are your decision, not a product of light falloff, I can understand them as a way of emphasizing the singular status of the house and tree, but I think that darkening on the outside fence pickets is overdone, because it emphasizes the darkening rather than the relationship to the plowed rows and worn wood of the house.

There appears to be a softening of focus on the left, primarily in the middle section where the trees are. I can't tell if it is in the negative, perhaps due to a film buckle or that those trees were beyond your depth of field. However, if it is fixable, sharpness there would be more in unity with the rest of the image.

[Alan Klein]

Thanks for your comments Phil. Anyone else?

[h2oman]

I agree with Philip about the edge darkening. Images without a strong focal point might benefit, but I find that the house and the tree are very powerful draws and don't need that help. In addition, the slats in the fence take us to the furrows in the field, which take us to the house and tree. The centering of the house and tree, the perfectly perpendicular view of the fence and the side of the house create a very stable, formal composition. Some prefer images that are more dynamic, but I, for one, enjoy photographs of this sort.

There's a lot going on in the image, and I wonder if the clouds are just one too many elements? Do they create a slight imbalance? I don't know, just food for thought. Due to some recent interactions with a photographer friend, I've been thinking about landscape skies a lot lately...

It does appear that the furrows and background trees are much sharper on the right than the left.

I previously said critiques should not include "I would...," but I'm going to break my own rule :cool:: If I lived near this place, I would photograph it often, under various conditions! :)

[Vaughn]

Over-all a very good image. If one can tell there has been manipulation (such as edge-burning), often that is a sign one has gone too far.

It is interesting you have treated the house/tree as a single visual unit, centering them as a whole in the image. Someone with more personal attachment to the property might have centered the house. It would be one of those things I would be going back and forth on behind the camera when deciding the final composition. The visual play between the fence and the furrows is fun. The fence does not become the barrier it might otherwise be.

I am enjoying the tonality of the sky just above the house. The darkening of your sky does force the eye towards subject (tree/house) in the center. An even sky (not noticably darken and perhaps no filter, or a yellow filter) would allow the tree and house to be what draws the eye in. Basically the same thing, but subtle.

[cowanw]

A brilliant pictorialist riposte to Paul Strand’s “White Fence”. Both images act as a living symbol of rural America, and also of the symbols of ownership and property delimitation. Strand's image shows a bold white foreground laid down over a dark ground, while yours melds the tonal range of the fence into that of the fields and the house. Strand, drawing on the ideals of modern art, uses the properties of the fence to create a dynamic composition that does not employ traditional perspective. Your image returns to the static and central composition with pictorialist tones and a clever use of soft focus.
It is unclear what the principle subject of your image is as the tonalities of house, field and fence make a choice imprecise. The furrows of the fields and the slats of the fence lead us not directly to the house but to the space between house and tree, which creates a sense of disquiet or uncertainty.
The house, the structure of American desire, is dilapidated, with dark soulless windows and a closed unwelcoming door. The fields plowed and planted in long lines across the full width of the picture speak of industrial farming; the dilapidated house has been sold with the land to the corporation and is empty and left to ruin.
The fence is not the bright new dynamic fence of Strand’s modern world. It is a snow fence put up to stop the cold winds and snows of winter, but it has not been taken down in the spring. There are no longer people to maintain it and it is broken uneven and tonally merged into the fields. Strand's fence is a fence that is desirable, even enviable. This fence represents a barrier to access, to keep out the experience and wisdom and change that come with the winter wind.
From the shadows cast and the mostly bright sky, it seems to be morning, but from the East, the sky, which tends brighter to the left, is inexplicitly darkened in the corner just as much as is the right but the effect is heightened. (there is a stop or so tonal difference in the natural right and left skies; consider maintaining this difference if you do darken the corners) At the same time all of the left is out of focus, fuzzy, undefined and the trees lining the horizon of the field are knurled and deformed. There is darkness and fuzziness and softness from the left. On the other hand, the right is sharp, crisp, well defined. Veracity and sharpness are on the right, while ignoring the decay of the house and fence.
The tall conifer towers over all else. Is this nature that will still be there after the complexities of man have crumbled?
This might be a brilliant pictorial comment on the decaying of America and its turn to the right despite the failure of ownership and property delimitation! Or it might be that the image is an expression of your idea of a perfectly natural pretty picture- abandoned house, industrial farming and dilapidated fence.
I reread parts of my criticism books but they all require a statement of intent to critique whether a photograph is successful or not.
We do not know what your purpose was regarding this image, so we cannot comment on the success of the picture.
I have an expectation that what I have written will be disposed of quickly. Nevertheless, reflect that, even if you just thought it was a pretty picture, something in your mind made you decide this was an image that you wanted to make. You have decided to depict the tonally indistinct fence, field, and house in a static central composition.
Something made you think this image was worthy to make? I cannot know what that was but this is what it made me think about.
I tried to enlarge the image and this took me to Flickr where a lot of people liked this, so good on that.

[awty]

It works better in portrait or square, but apart from that it's a very nice composition.

[Vaughn]

I was thinking along the lines of a square, also...but thinking along other lines...if a feeling of openness is desired, stepping back several paces with same lens and the same amount of fence would open up the sky. But the original image strongly draws the viewer into a place that looks to be full of stories.

[awty]

I was thinking along the lines of a square, also...but thinking along other lines...if a feeling of openness is desired, stepping back several paces with same lens and the same amount of fence would open up the sky. But the original image strongly draws the viewer into a place that looks to be full of stories.

Sure, but the picture at hand is so very well balanced in square format youd have to do it just because. Although Id make the house more centered, but thats just me.

[Tin Can]

Agree

You are one of the experts that qualify by extensive study and writing to make a critique

Thank you


A brilliant pictorialist riposte to Paul Strand’s “White Fence”. Both images act as a living symbol of rural America, and also of the symbols of ownership and property delimitation. Strand's image shows a bold white foreground laid down over a dark ground, while yours melds the tonal range of the fence into that of the fields and the house. Strand, drawing on the ideals of modern art, uses the properties of the fence to create a dynamic composition that does not employ traditional perspective. Your image returns to the static and central composition with pictorialist tones and a clever use of soft focus.
It is unclear what the principle subject of your image is as the tonalities of house, field and fence make a choice imprecise. The furrows of the fields and the slats of the fence lead us not directly to the house but to the space between house and tree, which creates a sense of disquiet or uncertainty.
The house, the structure of American desire, is dilapidated, with dark soulless windows and a closed unwelcoming door. The fields plowed and planted in long lines across the full width of the picture speak of industrial farming; the dilapidated house has been sold with the land to the corporation and is empty and left to ruin.
The fence is not the bright new dynamic fence of Strand’s modern world. It is a snow fence put up to stop the cold winds and snows of winter, but it has not been taken down in the spring. There are no longer people to maintain it and it is broken uneven and tonally merged into the fields. Strand's fence is a fence that is desirable, even enviable. This fence represents a barrier to access, to keep out the experience and wisdom and change that come with the winter wind.
From the shadows cast and the mostly bright sky, it seems to be morning, but from the East, the sky, which tends brighter to the left, is inexplicitly darkened in the corner just as much as is the right but the effect is heightened. (there is a stop or so tonal difference in the natural right and left skies; consider maintaining this difference if you do darken the corners) At the same time all of the left is out of focus, fuzzy, undefined and the trees lining the horizon of the field are knurled and deformed. There is darkness and fuzziness and softness from the left. On the other hand, the right is sharp, crisp, well defined. Veracity and sharpness are on the right, while ignoring the decay of the house and fence.
The tall conifer towers over all else. Is this nature that will still be there after the complexities of man have crumbled?
This might be a brilliant pictorial comment on the decaying of America and its turn to the right despite the failure of ownership and property delimitation! Or it might be that the image is an expression of your idea of a perfectly natural pretty picture- abandoned house, industrial farming and dilapidated fence.
I reread parts of my criticism books but they all require a statement of intent to critique whether a photograph is successful or not.
We do not know what your purpose was regarding this image, so we cannot comment on the success of the picture.
I have an expectation that what I have written will be disposed of quickly. Nevertheless, reflect that, even if you just thought it was a pretty picture, something in your mind made you decide this was an image that you wanted to make. You have decided to depict the tonally indistinct fence, field, and house in a static central composition.
Something made you think this image was worthy to make? I cannot know what that was but this is what it made me think about.
I tried to enlarge the image and this took me to Flickr where a lot of people liked this, so good on that.

[johnmsanderson]

I really like this. It's got a strong central focus with the house and tree, but what I particularly like is the added perspective of the field which brings the eye towards the house and back to what I think is my favorite part of the image -- the fence, which is brilliantly lit and is placed perfectly in the frame (it matches neatly the distance of top frame and tree). The lighting on the fence is my favorite detail -- how it goes from shadows to highlights from left to right. Not sure what I would change -- I even like the clouds which are not "perfect" and add a bit of randomness to the otherwise serene scene. Is the film sharp all over? On the screen it looks like the left side is a bit soft -- I would personally love a print of this!

[jtomasella]

The image overall is very pleasing. I probably wouldn't do anything different. The only thing I see is front tilt was used to get the fence and house in focus which softened the middle, but that is the trade off that one must expect.

[Alan Klein]

You guys are great. I really appreciate you all spending the time reviewing and posting your feelings about this. I picked this picture because although it got a lot of Favorites check marks on Flickr, I knew it had a lot of flaws. Some comments about critiques and what I learned.

First off, I was never going to put this in Flickr because it's fundamentally not in good focus. I was able to get away with it though because at 1024 pixels wide, I've hidden a lot of the defects. I could never make a decent print out of it. Here is what I learned from you all.

1. Focus: I used a 4x5 and focused on the roof then tilted the rear standard to put the fence into focus. That's why the field middle ground is so out of focus. Any suggestions for how I should have handled this better.

Also, I don't know why the left seems more out of focus. It could be I shifted the standard (twisted). Or could it be that area was further away from the right side?

Lesson: I have to make sure I default the large format standards to their initial positions. I often forget to do that. Lesson learned.

2. Cropping: Some of you commented on the centering of the house and tree making it less dynamic. Some commented that cutting off the left side would make it even more balanced. I agree. I have an eye that tends to balance my pictures-maybe too much. I included the original picture below before the crop for comparison and comments if anyone wants to add them.

Lesson: Be more daring. Try different kinds of crops.

3. Position of camera. Some commented that the lines in the field don't line up the best. I agree. I 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.

4. Aesthetics and meaning. Some really commented in depth about a psychological examination of why I chose this and what it means. I'm not that smart or complicated. It just looked interesting when I passed it on the road. There was something about the house and tree just standing there with the lines of the fence and furrows in the field that made it interesting and which had potential for an interesting shot.

Lesson: Photos can be like Rorschach blots. People can see into them whatever they envision. I have to go with what I feel since I'm not in anyone else's head. But it;s fascinating to see how we all interpret things differently.

5. Vignetting: Overdone, I agree. I violated my own standard of never overdoing an edit so the viewer notices I did the edit. The effect should be subconscious.
Lesson: Spend more time reviewing the final results before posting. Give it a day.

Thanks again.

[tgtaylor]

1. Focus: I used a 4x5 and focused on the roof then tilted the rear standard to put the fence into focus. That's why the field middle ground is so out of focus. Any suggestions for how I should have handled this better.

Depending on your camera, focus on the near and tilt for the far. Do this for 3 iterations and then STOP DOWN for the middle.

[h2oman]

I should have move around more to see if I could have found a better position.

Any significant lateral movement would eliminate the straight-on view of the side of the house, which would then significantly alter the feel of the image. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but that straight-on, formal presentation would be lost.

[h2oman]

I personally have learned a lot from this thread about how other photographers look at, and think about, images. It would be interesting to get another assessment from non-photographers. If they like it, why? If they don't, why not? I need to ask those questions of my friends!

[Alan Klein]

1. Focus: I used a 4x5 and focused on the roof then tilted the rear standard to put the fence into focus. That's why the field middle ground is so out of focus. Any suggestions for how I should have handled this better.

Depending on your camera, focus on the near and tilt for the far. Do this for 3 iterations and then STOP DOWN for the middle.

My camera has asymmetrical tilts on the rear standard. In order to set the far focus on the asymmetrical line, I had to move the front standard up to get the far tree (not the roof as I mentioned earlier)on the line and focused the tree on that line. Then I dropped the front standard down and tilted the rear standard back until the fence gets into focus. Rising and then lowering the front standard shouldn't change the focus with asymmetrical tilts, I believe, Is that wrong? The aperture was set on f/22.

Any suggestions?

[Alan Klein]

I personally have learned a lot from this thread about how other photographers look at, and think about, images. It would be interesting to get another assessment from non-photographers. If they like it, why? If they don't, why not? I need to ask those questions of my friends!

What I've found in general, is that if a picture works, everyone likes it. Of course, photographers will notice technical issues that non-photographers often don't notice or care about.

[johnmsanderson]

You guys are great. I really appreciate you all spending the time reviewing and posting your feelings about this. I picked this picture because although it got a lot of Favorites check marks on FLickr, I knew it had a lot of flaws. Some comments about critiques and what Ilearned.

First off, I was never going to put this in FLickr because it's fundamentally not in good focus. I was able to get away with it though because at 1024 pixels wide, I've hidden a lot of the defects. I could never make a decent print out of it. Here is what I learned from you all.

1. Focus: I used a 4x5 and focused on the roof then tilted the rear standard to put the fence into focus. That's why the field middle ground is so out of focus. Any suggestions for how I should have handled this better.

Also, I don't know why the left seems more out of focus. It could be I shifted the standard (twisted). Or could it be that area was further away from the right side?

Lesson: I have to make sure I default the large format standards to their initial positions. I often forget to do that. Lesson learned.

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.


2. Cropping: Some of you commented on the centering of the house and tree making it less dynamic. Some commented that cutting off the left side would make it even more balanced. I agree. I have an eye that tends to balance my pictures-maybe too much. I included the original picture below before the crop for comparison and comments if anyone wants to add them.

Lesson: Be more daring. Try different kinds of crops.

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

[QUOTE]4. Aethetics and meaning. Some really commented in depth about a psychological examination of why I chose this and what it means. I'm not that smart or complicated. It just looked interesting when I passed it on the road. There was something about the house and tree just standing there with the lines of the fence and furrows in the field that made it interesting and which had potential for an interesting shot.

Lesson: Photos can be like Rorschach blots. People can see into them whatever they envision. I have to go with what I feel since I'm not in anyone else's head. But it;s fascinating to see how we all interpret things differently.

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.


5. Vignetting: Overdone, I agree. I violated my own standard of never overdoing an edit so the viewer notices I did the edit. The effect should be subconscious.
Lesson: Spend more time reviewing the final results before posting. Give it a day.

Thanks again.

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.

[Vaughn]

...
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.


Wow...odd thing to say about critiquing. By definition it is a thinking-type activity.

If one shows one work to others, then one should consider caring about how others approach one's images. Otherwise one is in danger of becoming like a person who can't stop talking about a boring subject that interests only themself.:cool:

[Serge S]

A brilliant pictorialist riposte to Paul Strand’s “White Fence”. Both images act as a living symbol of rural America, and also of the symbols of ownership and property delimitation. Strand's image shows a bold white foreground laid down over a dark ground, while yours melds the tonal range of the fence into that of the fields and the house. Strand, drawing on the ideals of modern art, uses the properties of the fence to create a dynamic composition that does not employ traditional perspective. Your image returns to the static and central composition with pictorialist tones and a clever use of soft focus.
It is unclear what the principle subject of your image is as the tonalities of house, field and fence make a choice imprecise. The furrows of the fields and the slats of the fence lead us not directly to the house but to the space between house and tree, which creates a sense of disquiet or uncertainty.
The house, the structure of American desire, is dilapidated, with dark soulless windows and a closed unwelcoming door. The fields plowed and planted in long lines across the full width of the picture speak of industrial farming; the dilapidated house has been sold with the land to the corporation and is empty and left to ruin.
The fence is not the bright new dynamic fence of Strand’s modern world. It is a snow fence put up to stop the cold winds and snows of winter, but it has not been taken down in the spring. There are no longer people to maintain it and it is broken uneven and tonally merged into the fields. Strand's fence is a fence that is desirable, even enviable. This fence represents a barrier to access, to keep out the experience and wisdom and change that come with the winter wind.
From the shadows cast and the mostly bright sky, it seems to be morning, but from the East, the sky, which tends brighter to the left, is inexplicitly darkened in the corner just as much as is the right but the effect is heightened. (there is a stop or so tonal difference in the natural right and left skies; consider maintaining this difference if you do darken the corners) At the same time all of the left is out of focus, fuzzy, undefined and the trees lining the horizon of the field are knurled and deformed. There is darkness and fuzziness and softness from the left. On the other hand, the right is sharp, crisp, well defined. Veracity and sharpness are on the right, while ignoring the decay of the house and fence.
The tall conifer towers over all else. Is this nature that will still be there after the complexities of man have crumbled?
This might be a brilliant pictorial comment on the decaying of America and its turn to the right despite the failure of ownership and property delimitation! Or it might be that the image is an expression of your idea of a perfectly natural pretty picture- abandoned house, industrial farming and dilapidated fence.
I reread parts of my criticism books but they all require a statement of intent to critique whether a photograph is successful or not.
We do not know what your purpose was regarding this image, so we cannot comment on the success of the picture.
I have an expectation that what I have written will be disposed of quickly. Nevertheless, reflect that, even if you just thought it was a pretty picture, something in your mind made you decide this was an image that you wanted to make. You have decided to depict the tonally indistinct fence, field, and house in a static central composition.
Something made you think this image was worthy to make? I cannot know what that was but this is what it made me think about.
I tried to enlarge the image and this took me to Flickr where a lot of people liked this, so good on that.

Yes when I saw this image made me think of that Strand photo!
I like your photo - as I like the composition.
The other factors have been mentioned, but overall nice image!

[tgtaylor]

If you keep both standards parallel, then you can't get a plane of focus that encompasses 3 or more points. In the print below I wanted the house and the immediate foreground grass sharp so, IIRC, I initially chose the chimney on the far upper left as my far point and the grass as the near and stopped down for the road and house. But then the trees on the background were too soft for my liking so I refocused using the top of the tall tree above the gable as my far point. Stopping down everything came into sharp focus. The grass had been cut and this is a salt print so it isn't as noticeable as it would be if it was a silver print, but I just took a 10X loupe to the print and you can make-out the individual strands of grass.


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52664971022_a8e9c3881d_o.jpg

[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.

[QUOTE]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.

Thanks for your comments. One questions about about potential swing and out of focus areas on the left. I just remembered I had another shot I took with the same 150mm lens a couple of years ago. I had the film scanned by someone who had a Howtek. And he noticed that some areas were not in focus as well. Could the issue be the lens or some other reason beside me swinging the standard? He circled the areas out of focus which kind of match the areas in the current photo.
Here's the Howtek scan.

[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...

[Alan Klein]

If you keep both standards parallel, then you can't get a plane of focus that encompasses 3 or more points. In the print below I wanted the house and the immediate foreground grass sharp so, IIRC, I initially chose the chimney on the far upper left as my far point and the grass as the near and stopped down for the road and house. But then the trees on the background were too soft for my liking so I refocused using the top of the tall tree above the gable as my far point. Stopping down everything came into sharp focus. The grass had been cut and this is a salt print so it isn't as noticeable as it would be if it was a silver print, but I just took a 10X loupe to the print and you can make-out the individual strands of grass.


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52664971022_a8e9c3881d_o.jpg

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.

[h2oman]

I'm interested in subjecting one of my own photographs to this process. Do I post it in this thread, or start a new one?

[Alan Klein]

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...

I think the problem with trying to interpret these things is that we have to get into the head of the photographer. That's very difficult. Can one truly remember and explain how a photo view influenced them before they took the shot? Imagine the difficulty that is for a viewer who's another step away from the original process. I think we're asking too much of the photographer and viewer. It's an interesting exercise though but comparable to interpreting what a Rorschach blot means to another person.

Which reminds me of the joke about the patient who was asked by the psychiatrist what he saw in a Rorschach blot test.

"I see a guy having sex." said the patient.

So the psychiatrist showed him another blot and the patient responded. "I see another guy having sex."

Again, for the third time, the patient responded, "I see a guy having sex."

So the psychiatrist informs him, "Sir, there's something wrong with you that you see a guy having sex in all three".

And the patient retorted, "Well, you're the one showing me all these dirty pictures."

[Oren Grad]

I'm interested in subjecting one of my own photographs to this process. Do I post it in this thread, or start a new one?

I think it will be difficult to keep multiple discussions sorted and on track if they are run within the same thread. For now I'd recommend starting a new thread for each discussion, with a title that identifies the picture in some way and indicates that it's a critique thread. We'll keep an eye on these and over time we'll figure out if some other approach to organization is warranted.

I've moved the other thread with general discussion of critique threads to the Feedback subforum. Further thoughts about the mechanics of doing this are welcome, but please post them in the Feedback thread so as not to derail the actual critique discussions.

If Alan would like to give us a more specific title for this thread I can do the edit.

[Alan Klein]

I think it will be difficult to keep multiple discussions sorted and on track if they are run within the same thread. For now I'd recommend starting a new thread for each discussion, with a title that identifies the picture in some way and indicates that it's a critique thread. We'll keep an eye on these and over time we'll figure out if some other approach to organization is warranted.

I've moved the other thread with general discussion of critique threads to the Feedback subforum. Further thoughts about the mechanics of doing this are welcome, but please post them in the Feedback thread so as not to derail the actual critique discussions.

If Alan would like to give us a more specific title for this thread I can do the edit.
How about
Photo Critique - "Planting" Feb 1, 2023

Done, thank you! --Oren

[johnmsanderson]

[QUOTE=johnmsanderson;1670428]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.



Thanks for your comments. One questions about about potential swing and out of focus areas on the left. I just remembered I had another shot I took with the same 150mm lens a couple of years ago. I had the film scanned by someone who had a Howtek. And he noticed that some areas were not in focus as well. Could the issue be the lens or some other reason beside me swinging the standard? He circled the areas out of focus which kind of match the areas in the current photo.
Here's the Howtek scan.

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…

[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."

[Vaughn]

Just remember neither F22 nor f64 are sacred.

Thank you, Henry James!

[tgtaylor]

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.

[Alan Klein]

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. .

[Tin Can]

Allen

Keep facts concise, like Joe Friday (https://www.google.com/search?q=Joe+Friday&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS850US850&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)




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. .

[Alan Klein]

[QUOTE=Alan Klein;1670451]

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:

[Alan Klein]

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.

[Tin Can]

Serendipity

[otto.f]

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

[Oren Grad]

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.

[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.org/files/2016/08/4-Step-Critique-Process-Notes-Activity-1dcw7i5-10ng3qs.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

[Alan Klein]

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.org/files/2016/08/4-Step-Critique-Process-Notes-Activity-1dcw7i5-10ng3qs.pptx
Please keep in mind that, yes, I may be taking this way too seriously, eh!

No offense taken. I have a lot more photos that I would be glad to print. But your point is well taken. I selected this one knowing there were a lot of issues with it. I wanted to see how I could correct them and what I did was wrong by depending on other more capable photographers than me to make recommendations. Especially because I'm new to LF cameras. One of the purposes of a critique I believe is to make us better photographers. So I have to let my dirty stuff hang out if I want to learn. Thanks again for your comments.

[Tin Can]

Please post what YOU think is best work

Testing us is a bad idea

[bmikiten]

I enjoy this type of work. I often find myself looking at images like this an wondering about the history, the family that lives there or those who have lived there and worked the land in the past.

Technically, it is well framed and the I like the overall look of the image. It would be interesting to see the print with a bit more brightness in the clouds and even the building to help it stand out a bit. The tree (is it in focus?), while a strong element, appears dark and one that I might try to lighten with either dodging or masking. The fence is well placed but tends to blend into the foreground which may have been unavoidable. I'd look at using a different (yellow) filter in the field to perhaps generate a bit of separation here. It is a pleasing image and one I'd be happy to have taken.

[Vaughn]

In a critique, a lot of effort is required from all parties -- photographer, image/print, and the critiquers.

It is easy to say that we do not like the tone of the sky, or that an object/subject should or should not be centered. But such comments would be far more beneficial if followed up with the reasoning behind the comments.

With Alan's image I would prefer a lighter sky if it were my image, which it is not. But I would like to communicate with Alan and have him consider the importance of the tone of a sky and how that affects how people will react to images. Obviously a dark, stormy, or dramatic sky would give the home a very different feel.

Close to Alan's original composition and a lighter sky would (for me) create a stronger feeling of age, abandonment and isolation of the home (simply more empty space around it)...something people tend to react strongly to. It is not that I think Alan needs to do this with this particular image, but it is something to have in one's head when out looking for images. A tool for the tool chest.

[h2oman]

My post, to which Bernice is responding below, does not specifically address the image in question. I have chosen to move it to the original discussion about online critique, now found in the feedback thread: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?171871-On-line-group-critique-thread-ideas&p=1670613&viewfull=1#post1670613

[Bernice Loui]

“Every other artist begins with a blank canvas, a piece of paper. the photographer begins with the finished product”
― Edward Steichen

"To be able to take my pictures, I have to look, all the time, at the people and places I care about. And I must do so with both ardor and cool appraisal, with the passions of eye and heart, but in that ardent heart there must also be a splinter of ice."
~Sally Mann

"Some of my pictures are poem-like in the sense that they are very condensed, haiku-lik. There are others that, if they were poetry, would be more like Ezra Pound. There is a lot of information in most of my pictures, but not the kind of information you see in documentary photography. There is emotional information in my photographs."
~Sally Mann

"Pick a theme and work it to exhaustion... the subject must be something you truly love or truly hate."
~Dorothea Lange

"Surefire things are deadening to the human spirit."
~Dorothea Lange

"The arts are not simply skills: their concern is the intellectual, ethical, and spiritual maturity of human life. And in a time when religious and political institutions are so busy engraving images of marketable gods and candidates that they lose their vision of human dignity, the arts have become the custodians of those values which most worthily define humanity, which most sensitively define Divinity."
-Robert Shaw


What has been "learned" from " critique" _?_


Bernice





One of the purposes of a critique I believe is to make us better photographers.

So I have to let my dirty stuff hang out if I want to learn. Thanks again for your comments.

[Bernice Loui]

Enforcement of Conformity in "Foto_graphs"... ala, do as us, to be "accepted"... aka critique's end game.... tribal membership..

Bernice





William (should we call you Bill?),


Finally, regarding in-person critiques with prints: I once took a dozen plus prints to a 45 minute critique session with a photographer who has several books published and is represented by a number of galleries, including the AA Gallery, Weston Gallery, Howard Greenburg Gallery in NYC, among others. (No that doesn't necessarily make him especially qualified to critique, but he has rubbed shoulders with a number of far more famous photographers, and I believe has done some teaching.) He looked through all the prints carefully several times. For one he commented that my choice of framing was interesting, and that I had left out something that he wanted to see. He concluded with something like "You should consider using more interesting toning." (His own work is very warm-toned.) After a long pause he said something like "I guess if you want something more specific, I would try to bring out more detail here, in this one." That was it.

[Bernice Loui]

If the goal is to be a "better" photographer, be a better human, Deeply understand the human condition and discover all that is within one self and how oneself and is connected and inseparable from the Much Greater Whole and acceptance of oneself and the Much Greater Whole..


Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

At extremes... bullying..
Tribalism is an innate aspect of the human condition..

Myopic example, ponder why lightweight field folder view camera for outdoor landscape images and all related has become today's definition of view camera's popularity and fashion_?_

Bernice



Really, tribal membership & enforcement of conformity ?

[Doremus Scudder]

...
We do not know what your purpose was regarding this image, so we cannot comment on the success of the picture.
...

Remind me to never state directly what my purpose was when making a photograph :)

[Bernice Loui]

Ponder how many times this has happened on LFF... alone, in and on the Much larger whole of the web/internet.. via social media and plenty more..
Keyboards & video display screens are quite effective barriers with an ability to de-humanize in many ways..

Bernice



Yes, some fringe-critique sessions can be unkind and very mean, couldn't agree more, but most critiques I have taken part in and witnessed were exactly the opposite, it is an act of sharing.
I don't see learning where someone is coming from /an understanding has to do with tribalism or enforcement of conformity. Unfortunately there are a lot of really mean people, and unfortunately getting an
"online critique" with strangers one might not know or trust might leave the door open to people being terrible human beings, and it is unfortunate that the internet often times breeds people to be rotten.

Regarding your camera-commentary, no clue, but cameras have always been bling, nothing new.

[Doremus Scudder]

Alan,

You really take criticism well. Me... well I don't know if I would be so charitable. That said, from your comments I think I can infer that some elements of the image were not well-though-out in advance and some technical matters escaped your attention. In the spirit of giving a bit of helpful advice and not really criticizing the image, here are my comments:


...

1. Focus: I used a 4x5 and focused on the roof then tilted the rear standard to put the fence into focus. That's why the field middle ground is so out of focus. Any suggestions for how I should have handled this better.

I think I've posted this for you before, but there are good methods for being sure what will be in acceptable focus in your image before you trip the shutter. Movements make this a bit more complicated but it's not rocket science. Tilting to put the plane of sharp focus (PoSF) in alignment with the house roof and the top of the fence fails to place the plane halfway into the area of depth of field. When you tilt to lay the PoSF down closer to horizontal, the area normally in front of the plane now becomes the area above the plane. You can see that placing that plane high in the image will give you lots of DoF in the air space above the plane where you don't need it. The solution is to better plan where you place the PoSF in the scene by choosing focus points that get that plane down into the middle of the scene. Sou want the top of the tree, the whole fence and all of the furrows in focus, so choose a far focus point that is halfway (vertically) between the treetop and the base of the house. Then choose a near point that is halfway between ground and the tips of the pickets.

Then, all you need is the proper f-stop to get the areas farthest from the PoSF acceptably sharp for the size print you want to make. I encourage you to review the article on the LF homepage about "How to select the f-stop" here: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html . Master that and you'll never have to guess about what will be in focus and what won't. Just find the furthest points in front of and behind the PoSF (in this case, above and below the PoSF) that you want sharp in the final print, note the focus spread and set the appropriate f-stop.



Also, I don't know why the left seems more out of focus. It could be I shifted the standard (twisted). Or could it be that area was further away from the right side?

Lesson: I have to make sure I default the large format standards to their initial positions. I often forget to do that. Lesson learned.


The above will fix this as well, simply check parts of the image that are in question to see if they fall within the focus spread. If not, you just use the new, more distant point to find a new focus spread. And yes, start applying your movements from zero position; it'll save a ton of time and headaches!



2. Cropping: Some of you commented on the centering of the house and tree making it less dynamic. Some commented that cutting off the left side would make it even more balanced. I agree. I have an eye that tends to balance my pictures-maybe too much. I included the original picture below before the crop for comparison and comments if anyone wants to add them.

Lesson: Be more daring. Try different kinds of crops.

3. Position of camera. Some commented that the lines in the field don't line up the best. I agree. I 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.

4. Aesthetics and meaning. Some really commented in depth about a psychological examination of why I chose this and what it means. I'm not that smart or complicated. It just looked interesting when I passed it on the road. There was something about the house and tree just standing there with the lines of the fence and furrows in the field that made it interesting and which had potential for an interesting shot.

Lesson: Photos can be like Rorschach blots. People can see into them whatever they envision. I have to go with what I feel since I'm not in anyone else's head. But it;s fascinating to see how we all interpret things differently.

5. Vignetting: Overdone, I agree. I violated my own standard of never overdoing an edit so the viewer notices I did the edit. The effect should be subconscious.
Lesson: Spend more time reviewing the final results before posting. Give it a day.

All of this should be done before you even set up the camera. Do the brain work and the creative work and make the expressive decisions about your image before you set about dealing with the camera-technical stuff. Wasn't it AA that said something about sharp images of unsharp concepts?... :)

Hope this helps! It's a good image, btw.

Doremus

[Bernice Loui]

.....
“Every other artist begins with a blank canvas, a piece of paper. the photographer begins with the finished product”
― Edward Steichen

That same ole repeating ... of image goals first with means and methods following...
Bernice




All of this should be done before you even set up the camera. Do the brain work and the creative work and make the expressive decisions about your image before you set about dealing with the camera-technical stuff. Wasn't it AA that said something about sharp images of unsharp concepts?... :)


Doremus

[Doremus Scudder]

My camera has asymmetrical tilts on the rear standard. In order to set the far focus on the asymmetrical line, I had to move the front standard up to get the far tree (not the roof as I mentioned earlier)on the line and focused the tree on that line. Then I dropped the front standard down and tilted the rear standard back until the fence gets into focus. Rising and then lowering the front standard shouldn't change the focus with asymmetrical tilts, I believe, Is that wrong? The aperture was set on f/22.

Any suggestions?

Another point: when you use back tilt, you alter the rendering of vertical parallel lines in the subject. Back tilt can be great for subjects without those parallel vertical lines or if you want converging verticals in the image (again, make a decision before you apply movements). However, with buildings, one often wants those verticals to be parallel in the image, which means you need the back plumb, usually in zero position if you set up the camera level, and then use front tilt to position the PoSF. That's certainly what I do in those situations.

As far as your asymmetrical tilts/swings go: they are just axis tilts/swings that are offset from center. The same challenge of choosing a focus point that lies on the axis happens with centered axis movements as well. So, you can use front rise/fall/shift to move things around (as long as the front standard is in zero position) or you can use a method similar to using base tilts, i.e., ignore the convenience of placing a focus point on a tilt/swing axis and simply focus on the chosen far point, tilt or swing till both the near and far points are equally unsharp, refocus on the far and check the near. If the near still isn't sharp figure out which way you need to tilt/swing to refine the focus (maybe you didn't go far enough or maybe you went to far). Then apply a much smaller amount of tilt/swing in that direction, check again and repeat until both chosen points are sharp. That's what we who use bare-bones field cameras do for base tilts all the time. It becomes second nature with a bit of practice.

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

I'm surprised the real estate agent even let you on the property of what would be a twelve million dollar house here in coastal Calif. They must be growing something illegal in that front yard to afford it.

[Tin Can]

I wonder if tears occur online during critique

They did IRL at SAIC

I have to sit alone in movie theaters as I am prone to weeping

Perhaps triggered by sitting very close with no one in front of me

I am easily drawn to emotion

Expressionism (https://www.parkwestgallery.com/what-is-expressionism-art/#:~:text=Instead%2C%20Expressionism%20puts%20the%20personal,the%20%E2%80%9Copposite%E2%80%9D%20of%20Impressionism.)



not kidding

[Alan Klein]

I enjoy this type of work. I often find myself looking at images like this an wondering about the history, the family that lives there or those who have lived there and worked the land in the past.

Technically, it is well framed and the I like the overall look of the image. It would be interesting to see the print with a bit more brightness in the clouds and even the building to help it stand out a bit. The tree (is it in focus?), while a strong element, appears dark and one that I might try to lighten with either dodging or masking. The fence is well placed but tends to blend into the foreground which may have been unavoidable. I'd look at using a different (yellow) filter in the field to perhaps generate a bit of separation here. It is a pleasing image and one I'd be happy to have taken.

Could the vignetting I added be causing this effect?

[Alan Klein]

In a critique, a lot of effort is required from all parties -- photographer, image/print, and the critiquers.

It is easy to say that we do not like the tone of the sky, or that an object/subject should or should not be centered. But such comments would be far more beneficial if followed up with the reasoning behind the comments.

With Alan's image I would prefer a lighter sky if it were my image, which it is not. But I would like to communicate with Alan and have him consider the importance of the tone of a sky and how that affects how people will react to images. Obviously a dark, stormy, or dramatic sky would give the home a very different feel.

Close to Alan's original composition and a lighter sky would (for me) create a stronger feeling of age, abandonment and isolation of the home (simply more empty space around it)...something people tend to react strongly to. It is not that I think Alan needs to do this with this particular image, but it is something to have in one's head when out looking for images. A tool for the tool chest.

Same question. Could the vignetting I added be causing this effect?

[Alan Klein]

Yes, some fringe-critique sessions can be unkind and very mean, couldn't agree more, but most critiques I have taken part in and witnessed were exactly the opposite, it is an act of sharing.
I don't see learning where someone is coming from /an understanding has to do with tribalism or enforcement of conformity. Unfortunately there are a lot of really mean people, and unfortunately getting an
"online critique" with strangers one might not know or trust might leave the door open to people being terrible human beings, and it is unfortunate that the internet often times breeds people to be rotten.

Regarding your camera-commentary, no clue, but cameras have always been bling, nothing new.

That's why I suggested that you can't critique until you post your own picture to be critiqued. It would lessen the "I know better than you do." and create more camaraderie.

[Peter De Smidt]

If you're photographing in a f/64 style tradition with a view camera, all quality elements need to be impeccable. Those must be nailed down first before you even consider something like composition, lighting, etc. Achieving this isn't hard. It just takes some practice. But...that's by no means the only good style. You can go shallow depth of field with only the most important element sharp, but if so, then it has to look intentional, i.e. not like it was an f/64-style mistake. Maybe with a scene like this it's worth taking two pictures, one in each style, seeing what you like. I started f/64 style, but now I rarely photograph that way.

[Vaughn]

Same question. Could the vignetting I added be causing this effect?

In this case the burning in (probably not technically vignetting) narrows one's attention towards the house and tree -- visually/mentally putting them (isolating them) at the back of a tunnel of light. An even sky (perhaps carefully burned in on the edges and corners) would do the opposite -- it would place the tree and house in a larger visual environment that the eye could drift off into, if it was not for the attraction of the tree and house, etc. Instead of just the house looking lonely, the whole environment looks lonely to be in.

But you do not really have to worry about this. Dodge and burn as you wish -- see the changes and make your decisions based on what you see.

Besides that, I suggest next time you are in a similar focus situation, take one at f22, but take one at f64 (not just f45). See the difference on your screen, if you can.

[Alan Klein]

Alan,

You really take criticism well. Me... well I don't know if I would be so charitable. That said, from your comments I think I can infer that some elements of the image were not well-though-out in advance and some technical matters escaped your attention. In the spirit of giving a bit of helpful advice and not really criticizing the image, here are my comments:



I think I've posted this for you before, but there are good methods for being sure what will be in acceptable focus in your image before you trip the shutter. Movements make this a bit more complicated but it's not rocket science. Tilting to put the plane of sharp focus (PoSF) in alignment with the house roof and the top of the fence fails to place the plane halfway into the area of depth of field. When you tilt to lay the PoSF down closer to horizontal, the area normally in front of the plane now becomes the area above the plane. You can see that placing that plane high in the image will give you lots of DoF in the air space above the plane where you don't need it. The solution is to better plan where you place the PoSF in the scene by choosing focus points that get that plane down into the middle of the scene. Sou want the top of the tree, the whole fence and all of the furrows in focus, so choose a far focus point that is halfway (vertically) between the treetop and the base of the house. Then choose a near point that is halfway between ground and the tips of the pickets.

Then, all you need is the proper f-stop to get the areas farthest from the PoSF acceptably sharp for the size print you want to make. I encourage you to review the article on the LF homepage about "How to select the f-stop" here: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html . Master that and you'll never have to guess about what will be in focus and what won't. Just find the furthest points in front of and behind the PoSF (in this case, above and below the PoSF) that you want sharp in the final print, note the focus spread and set the appropriate f-stop.



The above will fix this as well, simply check parts of the image that are in question to see if they fall within the focus spread. If not, you just use the new, more distant point to find a new focus spread. And yes, start applying your movements from zero position; it'll save a ton of time and headaches!



All of this should be done before you even set up the camera. Do the brain work and the creative work and make the expressive decisions about your image before you set about dealing with the camera-technical stuff. Wasn't it AA that said something about sharp images of unsharp concepts?... :)

Hope this helps! It's a good image, btw.

Doremus

I lot to digest but let me stick with the first. The annotations are what I think you meant but was not sure of the close focus point. #1 or #2? Is the far right?

I think I'm understanding that I originally picked too far and too close for my far and near point and not considering that the aperture will give me focus automatically nearer than the close focus point and further than the far focus point. That I should force the range closer in the middle? Is that the point you were making?

I need some time to work on the f stop explanation again. I had looked at it before when you provided it and just decided to settle on f/22 or go to f/32 when I sm shooting photos with longer distances required in my DOF as this one appears to have needed but I didn't do. Frankly, I was getting a little overwhelmed and was trying to come up with easier decisions.

[Alan Klein]

.....
“Every other artist begins with a blank canvas, a piece of paper. the photographer begins with the finished product”
― Edward Steichen

That same ole repeating ... of image goals first with means and methods following...
Bernice

The photo below of my Lightroom folder for this shot shows all the digital color and BW test shots, about 6 including different angles along with 5 videos describing the process to me for review afterwards. I also have written notes. It also has the scan of the final negative but not the Provia color photo I took also. That's still in the film holder waiting development.

If I spent any more time waiting for more inspiration, the sun would have set. Of course, I could have missed the better shot. But at some point, we all have to commit and trip the shutter.

[Alan Klein]

Another point: when you use back tilt, you alter the rendering of vertical parallel lines in the subject. Back tilt can be great for subjects without those parallel vertical lines or if you want converging verticals in the image (again, make a decision before you apply movements). However, with buildings, one often wants those verticals to be parallel in the image, which means you need the back plumb, usually in zero position if you set up the camera level, and then use front tilt to position the PoSF. That's certainly what I do in those situations.

As far as your asymmetrical tilts/swings go: they are just axis tilts/swings that are offset from center. The same challenge of choosing a focus point that lies on the axis happens with centered axis movements as well. So, you can use front rise/fall/shift to move things around (as long as the front standard is in zero position) or you can use a method similar to using base tilts, i.e., ignore the convenience of placing a focus point on a tilt/swing axis and simply focus on the chosen far point, tilt or swing till both the near and far points are equally unsharp, refocus on the far and check the near. If the near still isn't sharp figure out which way you need to tilt/swing to refine the focus (maybe you didn't go far enough or maybe you went to far). Then apply a much smaller amount of tilt/swing in that direction, check again and repeat until both chosen points are sharp. That's what we who use bare-bones field cameras do for base tilts all the time. It becomes second nature with a bit of practice.

Doremus

I understand the concept of using back tilts, but I can't see a change in the sizing of the fence even though I used a back tilt.

One clarification. My Chamonix asymmetrical back standard has the axis about 1/4 to 1/3 from the bottom. It's not on the bottom or in the middle. The Chamonix axis point is where the line is for far focus. How does that change your advice in the second paragraph?

[Alan Klein]

In this case the burning in (probably not technically vignetting) narrows one's attention towards the house and tree -- visually/mentally putting them (isolating them) at the back of a tunnel of light. An even sky (perhaps carefully burned in on the edges and corners) would do the opposite -- it would place the tree and house in a larger visual environment that the eye could drift off into, if it was not for the attraction of the tree and house, etc. Instead of just the house looking lonely, the whole environment looks lonely to be in.

But you do not really have to worry about this. Dodge and burn as you wish -- see the changes and make your decisions based on what you see.

Besides that, I suggest next time you are in a similar focus situation, take one at f22, but take one at f64 (not just f45). See the difference on your screen, if you can.
Vaughn Here's another shot (digital) that might fit your comments. Maybe I should have used a 75mm instead of a 150mm?

[Bernice Loui]

What was the intent of this image? What was the goal of this image? Does the image involve an emotional response first time viewed, and repeated emotional response with the passage of time (days to years)? Choices are not always a good thing as they can results in confusion and lack of focus on the image goals and intent and emotional/expressive content of the image. If the goal and intent of the image is clearly in focus, there are no real alternative choices, just what is possible under the given set of limitations and realities..

~The technical aspects of any image are often more than secondary to the expressive content of the image..

~What is being said with the image? How closely does the image come to expressing what you're trying to say?


By example... Two images previously posted on LFF.. The story of their creation..

Shortly after Turkey day 2022, neighbor had this groud more than a few times.. inspired for an image, asked neighbor if the ground could be borrowed, he offered it a new home.. As the idea for how to create the image continued to brew and gel in mind over the next few days, the need Became how to create that image in mind.. Decided to do this image as a still life using the 5x7 Sinar P2 as it needed to be exercised as did the studio strobe units.. The remainder became setting up image composition based on the GG image, then setting up the lighting to achieve what the image was in mind, intent and goals were set and fixed days ago.. it was much about turning it into a viable image by applying gear, materials, understanding and skill of craft to meet the image goals and intent of the image to be done.. Post# 74, are the previously posted images and related.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?157097-Post-your-homage-to-another-photographer-(any-format)/page8

235283

Two sheets of film per image (13x18cm Agfa APX100 long past date, Rodinal dev), one sheet as the primary image, second sheet as a back up. There is no exposure bracketing, no software bending of the image, no alterations to the image, no alternative choices to the image. The image made is close enough to the intent and goal of what the image needs to be.

Example two:
Happened upon this succulent in a field during a walk later afternoon as the light was low in the horizon. There was enough emotional content in this scene to create an image. Spent a few moments looking at the succulent bloom to figure out how an effective image can be made given the lighting and environment it lived in.. The TK23s was set up once the image goal and intent was established in mind, it was much about how to create it in that moment.. This is what the set up looked like (one of the few times this was documented using a Fone camera)..
235280

Image goals and intent was to use the other plants around this succulent as part of the composition, selective focus (longer than normal focal length at full lens aperture) lens and controlled plane/point of focus (camera movements) to enhance the visual focus of the succulent bloom, contrast filtering to effectively blanch the succulent bloom to further the viewers focus into the image.. The remainder was to get all this did before the light changed so much that the image in that moment in time was done and gone.. This is what the TK23s ended looking like after being set up to create this image using the 180mm Sonnar at f4.8, significantly flexed front and rear.. # 25A red filter was used to blanch the succulent bloom, exposure was based in what the film's (FP4) contrast range would be given the rated ISO of 50 and development with Rodinal at 50:1, lighting contrast range of this scene and how it would render on film given how it would be processed.
235281

Flat bed scan of the film image. Two images were made, one primary, second as a back up.. No software bending, no alternative image choices..
235282


More choices and more ability to bend the post image via software is not always a good thing, software bending can do wonders IF it becomes part of the process of achieving the image goal, image intent. otherwise, those choices become a mass of confusion that adds not a lot to producing clear focus to the image intent and goals.


Bernice










The photo below of my Lightroom folder for this shot shows all the digital color and BW test shots, about 6 including different angles along with 5 videos describing the process to me for review afterwards. I also have written notes. It also has the scan of the final negative but not the Provia color photo I took also. That's still in the film holder waiting development.

If I spent any more time waiting for more inspiration, the sun would have set. Of course, I could have missed the better shot. But at some point, we all have to commit and trip the shutter.

[Bernice Loui]

Another way...
Decisive moment images...

Share some images made during the Folsom Street Faire in 1997... few of many..

These images were made using a Canon F1n-AE, 24mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.2 or 80-200mm f4 zoom on 35mm Fujichrome 100.
Much about observation, quick figuring of how to capture that flash moment of emotional expression and the human condition (image goals/image intent). Once that moment is gone, it will never be again.. Effectively opposite of images made using view camera. Neither being better, both have their absolute ability to express the subject and who the image maker might be.. Again there were no alternative choices that can be made post via image bending software as that image frozen from that moment in time is essentially done..

235284

235285

235286

235287


Bernice





The photo below of my Lightroom folder for this shot shows all the digital color and BW test shots, about 6 including different angles along with 5 videos describing the process to me for review afterwards. I also have written notes. It also has the scan of the final negative but not the Provia color photo I took also. That's still in the film holder waiting development.

If I spent any more time waiting for more inspiration, the sun would have set. Of course, I could have missed the better shot. But at some point, we all have to commit and trip the shutter.

[Doremus Scudder]

I lot to digest but let me stick with the first. The annotations are what I think you meant but was not sure of the close focus point. #1 or #2? Is the far right?

I think I'm understanding that I originally picked too far and too close for my far and near point and not considering that the aperture will give me focus automatically nearer than the close focus point and further than the far focus point. That I should force the range closer in the middle? Is that the point you were making?

I need some time to work on the f stop explanation again. I had looked at it before when you provided it and just decided to settle on f/22 or go to f/32 when I am shooting photos with longer distances required in my DOF as this one appears to have needed but I didn't do. Frankly, I was getting a little overwhelmed and was trying to come up with easier decisions.

So, let me back up a bit. The closest thing to your camera is not necessarily what you should use for a near reference point for applying tilt. The closest thing should end up within the depth of field, but not lie on the plane of sharp focus. The trick is to place the reference points for the PoSF so that they are halfway between the objects on either side of the plane.

So, in your example, the near point for applying tilt should be somewhere on the picket that allows the top of the picket and the ground immediately behind the picket to be equidistant from the focus point as far as focus spread on the camera rail/bed is concerned. So, you'd focus on a likely spot, and then focus on the top of the picket and note the focus spread from the original point. Then repeat that for the ground behind the picket. If the focus spreads are not the same, choose a better focus point and repeat until you find the spot that allows those two focus-spread distances to be the same; that's your near focus point for applying tilt. Repeat that for a likely point in the distance - halfway between ground and treetop in this case. Now, apply tilt so that both these points are sharp and on the PoSF. In you example, it is hard for me to say exactly where that point will be, since I can't really judge the distances. The usual mistake that inexperienced view-camera users make is to choose focus points for applying tilt that are too high, leaving unused DoF on the front/top side of the plane and not enough behind/below.

Note: the points you use for applying movements are not the ones you will use to focus the camera and find the optimal f-stop. They are just for getting the PoSF in the right position in the scene. Once you've applied all the movements you want, you then have to find which points are actually "closest" and "farthest" from the PoSF and use these to determine a focus spread that will translate to an f-stop that is optimal. I put "closest" and "farthest" in quotes because when you use a lot of tilt, the area in front of the PoSF is more like the area above it, and vice versa. It's a matter of visualizing where the PoSF lies and where the areas on either side of it lie.

With more extreme tilts, the PoSF lies almost horizontally, so the "far" is under it and the "near" is above it. You then need to find the points in the areas above and below the PoSF that are most distant from it in terms of focus spread. The focus spread between those two extremes, measured in distance between the standards on the camera bed/rail, are what you use to set final focus, by positioning the standard exactly halfway between the two extremes. The focus spread itself tells you which f-stop to use. Greater focus spreads require smaller apertures.

It's worth noting that just a few mm of focus spread requires a fairly small aperture. Here are the values I use base on a CoC I chose (maybe the same as in the article on selecting the f-stop I linked to above). These are for 4x5.

1mm requires f/16.6 (decimal f-stop, so almost f/22)
2mm require f/22.6 (almost f/32)
3mm require f/32.2
4mm require f/32.6
5mm require f/32.9
6mm require f/45.2
7mm require f/45.4
8mm require f/45.6
9mm require f/45.8
10mm require f/45.9
11mm require f/64

The first take-away from the above is that, if you want to balance DoF and diffraction with most real-world subjects that end up with fairly large focus spreads, you'll be using apertures smaller than f/22 a lot.

Note that these are "optimal" f-stops. Diffraction sets in and gradually degrades the image as f-stops get smaller past about f/22. Ideally, all images would only have 1-2mm of focus spread and we could use f/22-f/32. Situations that have more focus spread require smaller apertures to balance the degradation between out-of-focus and diffraction. That means that maximum sharpness is being sacrificed for DoF; the smaller the aperture, the more overall loss of sharpness. This, in effect, limits the final print size, depending, of course, on how much softness is acceptable to the photographer at whatever viewing distance is planned. At f/32, the overall degradation isn't so great that 16x20 prints from a 4x5 negative are hugely impacted, in my opinion. At f/45, I don't like printing larger than 11x14. I rarely make an image at a smaller aperture than f/45.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

Doremus

[Doremus Scudder]

I understand the concept of using back tilts, but I can't see a change in the sizing of the fence even though I used a back tilt.

One clarification. My Chamonix asymmetrical back standard has the axis about 1/4 to 1/3 from the bottom. It's not on the bottom or in the middle. The Chamonix axis point is where the line is for far focus. How does that change your advice in the second paragraph?

The position of the back relative to the subject determines the rendering of parallel lines in the subject and, by extension the relative sizes of objects on the ground glass/film. The easiest way to visualize this is to imagine a building façade. If you set up the camera with the back plumb, the parallel verticals in the building will be rendered parallel on the film. If you point the camera up, which, in essence, is tilting the back backward, those parallels will converge toward the top (the part of the ground glass/film that's nearer the plane of the façade) and that part of the image will be smaller. If you point the camera down, the opposite occurs. This is really easy to see, especially with a handheld camera that has no movements. Use your digicam and play around.

However, if you tilt just a tiny bit, the effect may be too small to make a significant difference, or it may even be desirable.

And, keep in mind that pointing the camera down a bit and then using back tilt to bring the film back to parallel with the façade is exactly the same as setting up the camera plumb and the using a bit of front tilt. It's the position of the back relative to the subject that matters. How that happens makes no difference.

As far as using asymmetrical tilt. It's just an axis tilt with the axis off-center. If you can get a reference point for applying the tilt to lie on the axis line (whether center or off-center) you can then just tilt to get another point somewhere else in the image that you want on the PoSF sharp and leave it at that.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of situations where one of your chosen points doesn't fall on an axis. In that case, you can use front rise/fall to place that point on an axis line and then proceed as above. Keep in mind, however, that when doing this, the front standard must be not tilted, otherwise you'd change focus when using front rise/fall. And, you'll have to reposition the front standard for framing when you're finished applying the tilt.

And, if your reference points don't want to cooperate at all and you can't get one to line up with the axis, you have to use an iterative approach to apply the tilt: focus on the far (usually), tilt until both near and far points are equally unsharp, refocus on the far, check the near and make smaller adjustments, repeating the process until both points are acceptably sharp.

Best,

Doremus

[Peter De Smidt]

At least when starting out, I recommend that you square/plumb the camera and all movements. Figure out the focus spread, i.e. how much you much change extension, between the nearest and farthest focus points. Only use tilt or swing if doing so allows you a shorter focus spread. If you have time, spend some of it getting the minimum focus spread that you can. It often requires less tilt/swing than a beginner would think. Honestly, spend some time walking around your neighborhood practicing. That will pay huge dividends!

[Alan Klein]

Thanks Doremus and Peter.
I have to be honest that I'm more confused now than ever. This is one time that Hands-On training with a teacher would be very valuable. I need some time to decipher what you guys said and see how it actually works on the camera. Thanks again