MaxBloom - what all is bad about this photo?

[LaFoto]

Please let me know, particularly MaxBloom:

It is the original frame and the original colour, it is no conversion nor is it an originally b&w photo. It is all uncropped but, as you can imagine, part of a bigger whole.

It is part of a big monument on a cemetery.

 

[Alpha]

Am I being lured into some kind of critique trap?

It's very nice. Composition is right on. The exposure is nice and even, but slightly flat IMO and a tough call nonetheless. On one hand I wish the shot overall was a little brighter, but at the same time I wish there was a little more detail in the black guy on the left. Like I said, it's nice as it is, but you might try toying with the curves to lighten just the darkest parts and then maybe up the midtone contrast slightly. Or it could be worthy of an HDR attempt. Well done, in any event.

 

[shorty6049]

haha, particularly maxbloom

 

[The_Traveler]

Since there are few tones in this picture, it is inevitable that the picture is flat. It seems like it was taken on an overcast day because the shadowy figure on the left is so dim as to almost obscure that the figure seems to be very deeply stained with soot and yet the rest of the figure seems to be the same basic color as the other statue. The other figure is clearer, brighter but there is an obvious burnt out spot on the tip of the nose - I assume that is bird poop - that unfortunately draws the eye.

I am befuddled why Corinna is asking for critique on this as a picture. It is more a straight-on reproduction in 2 dimensions of a 3 dimensional sculpture .

In art books, a picture like this would be used to examine the scupture and not as an example of the photographer's ability. Because of the absence of any defined light creating shadows and highlights to make this interesting there is little for the photographer to do but get in the right position, include the entire thing and get the focus correct.

If I were tasked to do a picture of this scupture, I would include the feet and wait for a brighter day so I could introduce some light and dark elements - something that the sculptor had not already included.

 

[LaFoto]

Am I being lured into some kind of critique trap?

No-no-no!
You are not.
I am asking you in all honesty whether there is something wrong with this photo and if so, what it is?
No trap.

It's only that my presentation of this photo on this very forum is such an utter "non-starter", it just does not get any comments at all, so I was genuinely beginning to wonder why this is so?

Other cemetery photos get many more comments, and not only in the Darkside Gallery (which is where this photo started out, to be then moved by myself - I can do that :greenpbl: - to the General Gallery), but no more than one additional reply there, either.

I think Lew is giving the answer, actually: it really is nothing more but the transformation of something 3-dimensional into a 2-dimensional frame. No photographic or pp-treatment finesse required nor involved.

It is just part of a huge momument on someone's grave that I saw when I went out to Ohlsdorf cemetery in Hamburg the other day to photograph angels or other cemetery impressions, and I was touched by this depiction of the angel carrying that young boy away, against his dad's protestations (this is how I interpret the scene).

To compare the zoomed-in close-up (which is what the photo on display is), here is the_link to a wider-angle view of the entire monument. The father figure is as dark as the foundation and the "roofs" to the three half-domes of that triptych because he is more exposed to the elements than those figures who are that tiny bit further "inside". That accounts for his being so black.

The day was sunny but there are very tall trees which put this monument into the shadow, as did the position of the sun, which shone from about 10 o'clock (as can be seen on one of the two little columns in the wide angle pic), hence the lack of shadows. And I was not there to make photographing THIS monument my assignment, but cemetery monuments in general, you see, so I could not and did not want to wait for the sun to come round (and it would have done so from behind, i.e. I'd have to wait for more than 6 hours to have it in a better position). Therefore this is so flat.

My very genuine question is: is my zoomed-in close-up photo of this scene boring? Does it not carry a meaning to the viewer? Should I have waited those 6 hours, and would more shadows help making a close-up of this scene a better photo? Should I go back and look for this monument (my god, that cemetery is ever so huge, I doubt I can find it again, but I might try, I mean to go back, anyway, there are large parts that I haven't seen as yet) and look for different light and reshoot?

 

[gmarquez]

I tried messing with it...white and black point adjustment, using curves to pump up contrast a bit, a bit of sharpening...this is what I came up with (it's late here, and it's not perfect):



[Picture removed, as LaFoto has indicated "My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit". Many apologies. - g]



It looks a little more "3-D" to me than the original. Oh well, I'm going to bed.

(PS LaFoto, for some reason, saying "MaxBloom - what all is bad about this photo" can be interpreted to mean "hey, MaxBloom, are you crazy or something, what all is bad about this photo?" The American English term for it is "calling Max out", an confrontational way of disagreeing with someone. I know it wasn't your intention, but for some reason, the EXACT sentence structure you used can imply "calling someone out", at least in American English (which we all know is a 'truer' English than the English spoken in places like England.:mrgreen

 

[LaFoto]

G, I say my photos are not ok to edit - in red...

And ... oops ... if my title seems to have "called Max Bloom out" ... I really wanted HIS critique for he speaks his mind.

 

[The_Traveler]

No-no-no!
You are not.
I am asking you in all honesty whether there is something wrong with this photo and if so, what it is?
No trap.

It's only that my presentation of this photo on this very forum is such an utter "non-starter", it just does not get any comments at all, so I was genuinely beginning to wonder why this is so?

It probably got no comments because it is almost completely neutral. If you want a reproduction, well its OK.

I didn't respond initially because it would take 3x the effort to write the suggested changes in text as it would to edit the picture but you don't allow edits.

So I just passed it by.

 

[PNA]

Frankly the whole monument is worthy of a clear sharp shot. try shooting at a slight angle instead of head-on.

A little cloning here and there and then using the curves to bring out the tones as Max suggested, might work.....

One man's opinion.........

 

[RMThompson]

If you're trying to reproduce, as it's been said, it's fine as is.

If you are going for some kind of artistic shot, I would've started lower, to give the angel a taller look, and maybe focused on the angel, leaving the guy in the black soot slightly out of focus or soft focused.

Just me though.

 

[LaFoto]

Those are some good ideas! They are all well noted.
And by the way: I quite like G's edit!
And I will go back - that has been planned, anyway! - and try to find it again and get it in some better light, and then I will make this monument a bit more "my assignment" and work with it more. Thank you all. Now at least I know more!
Thank you sincerely.
This was no joke.
This was a serious question.

 

[gmarquez]

G, I say my photos are not ok to edit - in red...

Ooops, I am very sorry...edit removed. Please forgive me!:blushing::blushing:

 

[Alpha]

I'll post a more thorough critique this afternoon.

 

[Alpha]

Okay.

So when I initially looked at the photo, I figured that you were going for a reproduction, which is why I gave the critique that I did.

If your question is "does this carry a meaning to the viewer?" I think that the answer is no, no matter how you shoot it. I'll explain why, in terms of my personal philosophy on shooting in general. So you can take it or leave it, in part or in whole. But i'll try to explain why I believe this type of subject is inherently uninteresting. So here's my philosophy on photography. Hopefully you and the rest of the people on this board can understand, in the following context, why I critique the way that I do.


Photography is about Time. My goal as a photographer, is to capture generally between a couple minutes and 1/2000th of a second of eternity. That is, to preserve a moment in time. Everything that I do in preparation for, and when taking a photograph, is a function of time; whether it be film, shutter speed, aperture, etc. Light, as well, is a function of time. The sun is the standard for light. [This is why multiple shadows look so unnatural when artificial lighting is used improperly]. And were I able to time my location so that the sun would move into just where I want it, then I would do that. Sometimes I can. Ansel Adams used to drive up into Yosemite National Park at 4 in the morning and sit on top of his car with a camera mounted to the roof. He would sit there all day, waiting to take a single photo, until everything before him aligned itself perfectly. As a photographer, I am obsessed with mortality. Everything is fleeting. The ability to stop time for 1/125th of a second is what drives me. But what captures my imagination is the ability to stop it in a way that nobody else can or will for the rest of time, including myself. So when I ask myself why my best photographs are so amazing, I can only answer, because it is so improbable that I could or would decide to stop time when I did. And so I find that the more possible it is that I could take a particular photo twice, the less unique it is, and the less special it becomes.

So I look at the photograph you've taken, and I ask myself, "Is the subject escaping me? If I went to that cemetery, could I take the same photograph?" And I answer "no" and "most likely." And I believe that makes it uninteresting.

 

[gmarquez]

And so I find that the more possible it is that I could take a particular photo twice, the less unique it is, and the less special it becomes.

Very good point.