Critique My Photo Please

[catalinajack]

I have been into LF photography for about 4 years. As with most others I have been experimenting, testing, etc various film and developer combinations. Until just recently I have not found the look I personally prefer. The attached photo is what I have been looking for. I would like others' opinions on the quality, always judgmental of course, of my photo. It was taken with a Crown Graphic, hand-held and focused with the rangefinder. The film is Ilford Delta 100 developed in Xtol, 1:3 for 10 minutes (68 degrees) in a Jobo drum rotated on a Beseler motorized base. The photo you see is a scan of a darkroom print, not a scan of the negative.

[Michael E]

Unfortunately, you say more about the agitation of your developer than the look you strive for.

Your image is a mixture of documentation (everyday scene of a truck in a driveway, restrained photographic means, no effects, no visible compositional effort) and arrangement (the truck is sitting prominently in the driveway with more reference to the street than the house, rather private view from the property facing outwards). The subdued technique doesn't get in the way of the image. Viewers can relate to a common scene that is often seen but rarely noticed or photographed. Well done!

About the technique: I like the scale of tones, the beautiful reflections in the side of the truck, and the quality of light. I don't like the way the right house seems glued to the truck, and the empty upper right hand corner of the print. This is the only major bright area and it leads out of the composition. I would burn it in.

Please elaborate about your approach, your goals, and the look you are going for.

Michael

[chassis]

The highlights are a bit high (ref: the wheel rims), which is another way of saying there is too much contrast for my liking. Contrast can be reduced through shorter development times, or more dilute developer. Sharpness overall could be improved by using a tripod, smaller aperture and faster shutter speed.

Compositionally, I would have chosen a feature of the truck as the subject. As it is, the truck is the subject which seems pretty ordinary to me.

To me, it's a picture of a truck. One that would be used to document a property insurance policy, or place a classified ad. Literal and utilitarian. These are positive adjectives if this is what you were striving for.

[catalinajack]

The purpose of the picture was not for an artistic masterpiece. I shot it as a test for for the film and developer combination. Online it does appear to be too contrasty. The print is not so much. Yes, it's a truck in a driveway. The observations I seek are more technical in nature. I suppose I should have been more clear in my posting.

[Pawlowski6132]

The purpose of the picture was not for an artistic masterpiece. I shot it as a test for for the film and developer combination. Online it does appear to be too contrasty. The print is not so much. Yes, it's a truck in a driveway. The observations I seek are more technical in nature. I suppose I should have been more clear in my posting.

Can you be more specific on what you're looking for in regards to feedback?

Looks like you all the whites (rock, house, sky, trees etc.) are blown out. Maybe should have reduced development time.

[Rick Rycroft]

On my monitor there is plenty of tone in the whites and separation in the dark back of the car. To me it looks like a good starting point and I would go out shooting more scenarios and process the film the same way. One image isn't enough to get a feel of it, me thinks.

[photobymike]

The first a photographer needs to do is nail down his technique. An art photographer needs to not really think about the technical technique, but how his or hers picture will look like finished on a wall framed. Personally i have taken thousands and thousands of photos. Yea it looks good .... but would you want this on your wall in your house? Would you take the time to print and frame this photo? As a mechanic your photo is great... you got it. There is a very very thin fine line between good and great. A lot of times i have seen photographers become "legends in their own minds" because they can take a decent technically correct photograph. If you really want to cross the very fine line to be truly great photographer is to accept the critique of others is a start. You might consider a subscription to LensWork Magazine... Actually i would consider the older printed issues because of the "Editors Comments" and the "End Notes" by Bill Jay. Taking really good photographs is more of a proper mental state... than being in the right place at the right time.

The one thing that did make my pictures better, was to quit digital and use film only. I have found for me that using film involved more work, and sweat so i studied what i was taking a picture of. It involved getting a little bit of "subject connection" and fore thought. When i had my Nikon d3 and all the cool lenses i took hundreds if not a thousand pictures at a time, and then studied them on the computer to pick out the best ones. That worked great if i wanted good pictures. But for me and this is my opinion only. Once i went back to film, thats when i started taking great pictures. Now when i do a portrait or any other type of photograph, it takes me sometimes hours to get what i want. Taking a portrait photograph can just take a few minutes for good picture. But takes hours sometimes for great portrait picture. I taught photography in collage when i was much younger. I had a older student who was working on his MFA in photography. All he did was photograph clouds. He used to spend hours just watching the clouds.. i thought he was crazy. Butttttt... i am not so sure now....

[bobwysiwyg]

On my monitor there is plenty of tone in the whites and separation in the dark back of the car. To me it looks like a good starting point and I would go out shooting more scenarios and process the film the same way. One image isn't enough to get a feel of it, me thinks.

I agree with this assessment. I see subject contrast but little lost detail. Keep going.

[mike rosenlof]

I have read the Mr. Catalinajack's initial description and intentionall skipped the other comments to comment only on the photo and information supplied by the photographer.

According to the photographer, the image we see is a scanned darkroom print. Ilford Delta 100 was exposed in a Crown Graphic, most commonly 4x5 inch film size, and developed in Kodak Xtol developer.

The photo depicts a dark colored 2 door smaller size SUV. The vehicle is parked on what looks to be the driveway of a house is a somewhat rural, but suburban area. The vehicle is rendered fairly sharply, facing away from the camera giving the viewer a 3/4 view from the left rear. There are three houses on the other side of a road. It appears that there are no sidewalks along this road. All of the houses are painted light colors, do not appear to be large houses. The years have mature trees, grass, and overhead wiring for power and telephone. The vehicle does not appear to be a new model, but neither is it very old. I'm not an expert in these vehicles, so I would make a guess that it is a few years old, but not more than ten years old. I am not able to read the state of the license plate. The dynamic range of the exposre and the contrast look natural. There is detail in the lit tires on the near side. The right rear tire in shade might have no shadow detail. Trees reflect off some of the windows of the vehicle. It appears clean.

I would say it is well photographed and printed. It's not a very exciting picture. The smaller SUVs are pretty common in such suburban/rural neighborhoods. I'm not sure if the photographer is trying to tell me more about the car or the town. If he is, I have not received the message.

[Brian C. Miller]

After running the license plate number visible in the photo, we now know where you live! And we're showing up for figgy pudding. We won't go until we get some we won't go until we get some we won't go until we get some we won't go until we get some so bring it out or we'll keep singing at you and driving you mad, utterly mad. Share and enjoy share and enjoy journey through life with your plastic boy or girl at your side let your pal be your guide...

Along the right-hand side of the photo I see a stripe, like a light leak or a mis-print or something. Other than that, I guess you did well with the photo.

[catalinajack]

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

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

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

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

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

[catalinajack]

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

[Ken Lee]

"Critique My Photo Please"

You asked :cool:

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

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

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

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

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



http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/revision932.jpg

[Greg Miller]

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

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

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

[Michael E]

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

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

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

Michael

[cosmicexplosion]

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

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

[catalinajack]

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

[BrianShaw]

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

[Peter Lewin]

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