Good cop Bad cop

[Jim Galli]

Lately in an effort to understand what and why things work or don't work I've been shooting the same scene two ways for the comparison. Anyone else have some examples?


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/MemDay09Oxyn_PinkhamIV_BishCrk/BentonFordOxynS.jpg
ford at benton hot springs, oxyn lens f9

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/MemDay09Oxyn_PinkhamIV_BishCrk/BentonFordPinkhamIVs.jpg
ford at benton hot springs, pinkham-smith bi-quality lens f5

Do you like one better than the other? Why? Maybe they both fail. I've got impervious shoulders.

[Don7x17]

Jim

Great idea!
Just a suggestion, but could you post without the lens information, maybe telling that later in a late followup?
Its embarassing to say you don't like the image made with the pinkham-smith bi-quality ;-)

But honestly, I prefer the first. Plane of sharp focus seems to sit right on top of the driver's headlight at f9. The plane of sharp focus, presuming there is one at f5, for the second image seems to lie in front of the headlight yet behind the grasses, maybe closer to the grasses. Somehow that headlight draws me into the first image, whereas I just sort of drift around the second image without getting engaged. Just my 2 cents..YMMV.

[William McEwen]

What kind of gas mileage do you get with that thing? ;)

[Richard M. Coda]

I prefer the top one. The car is the subject for me... not the overgrowth in the foreground. Interesting concept, though.

[SAShruby]

I prefer the top one, sell me the lens from the second one ;)

[Bruce Watson]

Changing too many variables at a time. You changed the lens, the focus point, and the perspective (or at least the cropping). But... I like the top one best. Like the models eyes to be in focus ;)

[CatSplat]

I find the second one way more interesting to look at.

[Drew Wiley]

Top one just looks like a photo of an old truck, bottom one has a slightly sinister mystery quality to it and is much more interesting, also much better separation of
what's in/what's out focus areas. The "truck monster" is in the background lurking to
pounce like a ghost from a childhood dream. It's a metaphor and not just a piece of
machinery. Send me the lens and I will psychoanalyze it too!

[Doug Dolde]

I like the second one better, can't really say why though it just looks more like art.

[Oren Grad]

I like the first one better. I don't especially care for the OOF rendering in either, but it's less damaging in the first one. I think the placement of the plane of focus also works better in the first one, and the whole hangs together more coherently.

[Brian Ellis]

Second one by far. The first one is basically a documentary shot of an old car in the woods. The second has an air of mystery about it, a ghostlike or almost spiritual quality.

P.S. I typed this before looking at any of the other responses. Then I read them and of course saw Drew's. Great minds working together . . .

[sly]

I plump for the second one, it looks more like a Galli photo!

[Steve M Hostetter]

second photo,,, the truck is the subject no doubt and to me the second photo is a more artful rendering,, I get the feeling the grass will soon obscure all signs of the truck

[sun of sand]

I think the second is much better
First is a bit in your face and dull but with that angled branch removed would be better
Too much truck detail that I don't think is the point of the photo. The truck is abandoned whatever and yet the sharpness makes it appear to be showcased in a way that for me just doesn't jive. Dull as in tonally.

The second gives the impression of abandonment. The truck is off in the distance spirit-like
The glow helps with that aspect and sets tones apart. It's no longer a Nevada 1952 FORD stuck in the woods but a FORgotten FORmer FORD truck without a life to lead


I really dislike that angled branch, though. ..Drew mentioned Ghost-like I see

[JohnGC]

I don't see an abandoned truck, I see a truck hiding in some grass and trees. The second shot is reminds me of a model directed to become part of the background setting. "Almost ghost like" is a fitting term. The truck is fading into it's hiding spot. I like it.

[Struan Gray]

I bracket depth of field much more than I ever bracket exposure, or 'work the subject'. I still find it hard to judge Bokeh and the three-dimensional feel of a narrow focal plane while looking at the ground glass.

http://struangray.com/miscpics/dof_bracket/elder_f11_sm.jpg (http://struangray.com/miscpics/dof_bracket/elder_f11.jpg)

http://struangray.com/miscpics/dof_bracket/elder_f16_sm.jpg (http://struangray.com/miscpics/dof_bracket/elder_f16.jpg)

These two were taken at f11 and f16 with a 420 mm lens on 4x5. Even at moderate enlargements the seperation from the background and the concentration of attention change quite radically (to me, at least :-). Click on the images for larger files.

I don't think in terms of 'better' or 'worse', but rather closer or further away from the effect I want to promote. Jim's first photo is more about the car, the second is more about the undergrowth. In my case I feel the emphasis switches from a bias towards isolated twigs to the tree as a whole structure.

[mandoman7]

I always try to come back to "what is the point I'm trying to make" or "what is the look I'm trying to depict", and then decide on the equipment choices AFTER that. The idea or the sitter's persona should guide the equipment choices, rather than being subjected to them.

Having said that, the 2 choices presented represent 2 different intentions in my view. I like the lens characteristics of #2, but the foreground branching creates a tension that may not work for everybody. The foreground branches seem to work better in #1 although it still isn't clear what their contribution to the idea would be.

Its great to read these opinions, though, and to hear what people are thinking. I would've had no idea about some of the approaches.

[Jim Galli]

I bracket depth of field much more than I ever bracket exposure, or 'work the subject'. I still find it hard to judge Bokeh and the three-dimensional feel of a narrow focal plane while looking at the ground glass.

These two were taken at f11 and f16 with a 420 mm lens on 4x5. Even at moderate enlargements the seperation from the background and the concentration of attention change quite radically (to me, at least :-). Click on the images for larger files.

I don't think in terms of 'better' or 'worse', but rather closer or further away from the effect I want to promote. Jim's first photo is more about the car, the second is more about the undergrowth. In my case I feel the emphasis switches from a bias towards isolated twigs to the tree as a whole structure.


Struan, these are great. Only one stop yet in the first one, I very much see the tree while in the second I only see a mess. My problem is I'd very likely never see that on the ground glass. Also I'd never see the difference in B&W either I suspect. Color is a huge player in your example.


Thanks all for great replies. This image isn't destined to make my name a household word in either of it's iterations here. FWIW I of course like the second one better. It's a dream scape where my brain is trying to get to the details of that truck but can't quite get there. Why? What does it mean? The first is just a rather poor documentary shot. (as noted ;) ) I've shot this truck 2 times in the past. I thought it was gone for a couple of years but last weekend when I peered into the overgrowth I saw it was still there. I failed to get that feeling of near lostness in growth with either picture. And so it goes.

[Daniel_Buck]

I sometimes do similar things, different lensing, and sometimes different apertures/movements. I've got a few more variations of this shot that I can't find right now, but I still hope to get down to it and shoot it a few more times! Sometimes I think I enjoy the act of shooting more than the final result :D Not all taken on the same day.

http://404photography.net/wip/4x5/4x5_dodge_truck_01.jpg

http://404photography.net/wip/4x5/4x5_dodge_truck_03.jpg

http://404photography.net/wip/4x5/dodge_truck_01.jpg

[Jim Galli]

I sometimes do similar things, different lensing, and sometimes different apertures/movements. I've got a few more variations of this shot that I can't find right now, but I still hope to get down to it and shoot it a few more times! Sometimes I think I enjoy the act of shooting more than the final result :D Not all taken on the same day.




..a man after me own heart. That last one is sweeeeeet.

[Struan Gray]

Thanks Jim. I have found by trial and a lot of error that my eyes still have enough accomodation that I see much more structure in the ground glass image than ends up in the print - I'm using the non-scattered light to see somewhat in front of and behind the focal plane. I actually spent some time trying to use 'bad' bokeh to create texture in scenes with a lot of tight, calligraphic detail, but eventually realised that most of what was exciting me on the ground glass was never making it into the final print.

I quite often aim for an 'all-over' composition without a single centre of interest, in which case the smaller aperture tends to win. It took me a long time to learn that for these types of photograph a narrower depth of field makes things look *more* three-dimensional in the final print, in contradiction to the case with wide-angle f64 type scenics. I now think of DOF as flattening or expanding the depth of the printed image, rather than just being a measure of sharpness.

[Mark Sawyer]

I used to do similar comparisons, until I finally determined that all lenses are really about the same...

:)

[Turner Reich]

Jim the first one, Daniel the second one.

[Harley Goldman]

I like both, but I like the first better. I much prefer the truck effect in the second, but I would rather the tree be OOF. Looks like you changed the focus point between the two.

[Don7x17]

Daniel
I like the last one best ---for several reasons
first, you've lowered your point of view to just below the roof of the truck instead of a 3/4 view from above which the first two had.
and your lens choice with the softening really makes a difference to me.
Excellent!

[sun of sand]

2nd tree branches
first tree branches image has it's center along the top edge of the photo with bit coming down through the center while the second seems more chaotic and balanced ..more pleasing ..the middle light branch is sharper, too. Contrast is different between them

1st truck photo
I really like the light on the tree and the shallower dof ..gives impression of openness -a path leading away from truck that the second with more dof just doesn't have -which leaves it [second] looking stuck in an otherwise conjested woods setting
I like lesser amount of sticks seen where the hood? would be and the lower branches of 1st tree as its leaves seem to to be gently falling while the second looks more like bramble
The grill/bumper axle of second creates a wedge of truck in a circular space which ..whatever
I like the leaning trees, too. Second looks more modern in aesthetic being clean and straight 1st is more romantically framed and I believe plain better
Don't care for 3rd

[eddie]

daisy the cow.

1st one is my cooke 15 inch f4.5 SF at f8 with #3 soft focus.

2nd is my eidoscope at f8. about a 15 inch lens as well.

(it looks like i prefer the eidoscope at f13 as it has a better buzz and contrast as well. the cooke probably needs to be shot at f5 or 6 to get the max buzz)


i am still working on my galli style......

eddie

[Jim Galli]

daisy the cow.

1st one is my cooke 15 inch f4.5 SF at f8 with #3 soft focus.

2nd is my eidoscope at f8. about a 15 inch lens as well.

(it looks like i prefer the eidoscope at f13 as it has a better buzz and contrast as well. the cooke probably needs to be shot at f5 or 6 to get the max buzz)


i am still working on my galli style......

eddie

Daisy's looking gaunt. I like the Eidoscop version. No surprises there.

[eddie]

thanks jim.

no one else liked it.....go figure.

forgot to mention, 5x7 black aluminum wet plate collodion image.

[Chris Dunham]

I much prefer the first lens. The image from the second lens effects me on a physical level and disturbs my stomach.

I personally can't see any point using a lens that has distortion or what is to me distortion. This could well be because I'm not a photographer and I really only use photography as another image making tool that allows me some instant gratification and time away form the brushes and canvas.

Chris.

[Daniel_Buck]

Just for you Jim, a color version! Had this film sitting waiting to be developed for a while, finally got around to it :-)

http://www.buckshotsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/dodge_in_color_01.jpg

[Jim Galli]

Just for you Jim, a color version! Had this film sitting waiting to be developed for a while, finally got around to it :-)


Very cool. Now I'll date myself terribly and tell you that the little christian day school that my parents put me in out on Foothill Blvd in Sylmar had a Dodge bus with that grill. It caught on fire and the school board replaced it with a spanking new Ford. 1961.