Never Satisfied

[DavidVote]

Thanks, DavidVote.

#'s 1 & 3 seem to be underexposed. In #3 the distant background could be a bit brighter, and you would probably still get the silhouette.

#1 is too dark overall.

#2 is very nicely done.

Thanks for the input. I really enjoy darker pictures with darker tones overall but yeah.. I guess I might have overdone it. It wasn't underexposed, it was just processed to be much darker than it was.

 

[The_Traveler]

I like the first most of all; there is no probably getting a 'feeling' and creating a story that wouldn't be contradicted by the content. Very nice.
The problem would be getting a decent paper print from the relatively low dynamic range. IMO, increasing the brightness would destroy the mood.

For my taste #2 looks too planned and hard, the shadows are so deep and the bright sides very harsh.
#3 could be a scanned dirty negative or a heavily edited digital; in either case the 'figure' is too confusing to understand.

 

[DavidVote]

I like the first most of all; there is no probably getting a 'feeling' and creating a story that wouldn't be contradicted by the content. Very nice.
The problem would be getting a decent paper print from the relatively low dynamic range. IMO, increasing the brightness would destroy the mood.

For my taste #2 looks too planned and hard, the shadows are so deep and the bright sides very harsh.
#3 could be a scanned dirty negative or a heavily edited digital; in either case the 'figure' is too confusing to understand.

Hey, thanks for the hard criticism! Much appreciated.

For #2, I can't see it looking any other way. I went into the shot looking for a photo that sort of (very loosely) resembles what you see there. I wasn't completely satisfied with the result (pose isn't how I wanted) so I've been scheduling a reshoot with the girl. But the color-wise, it is 80% close to how I wanted the end result to look. Perhaps you could edit the edit to something that would look better in your eyes? If you want, I could definitely upload a tiff of the RAW file so you could start from scratch.

As for #3, I myself wasn't quite sure what I wanted to do with the photo. I just thought, hey, maybe I could try this and get a cool looking picture. But if it didn't work, thanks for telling me . Were you confused on whether it was shot with film or digital? Or is the just the pose by the subject?

 

[Overread17 5]

I find the darkness to be enjoyable in these shots. One could argue that shot 1 is underexposed, however whilst that would be likely true "histogram" wise I don't think it would be true artistically speaking.

It's got a moody feel that is very different from a muddy "underexposed" feel. If it were presented as part of a portfolio of similar work I think that effect would be enhanced.

Shot 2 certainly follows the same story pattern, its dark, but it doesn't feel like it wants nor needs more light nor that you've underexposed and got it muddy.

Shot 3 feels a little more muddy, the effect of making it look like an old film shot is likely masking that a little (we are conditioned/used to seeing pretty technically poor film shots so they "appear" more correct than technically "weak" digital shots).


Overall I'd say you're off to a good start; you're not working the way most are with bright vibrant shots, but you've got a clear eye for what you're after. I'd say work on that - work on noise control and editing that to keep that under-wraps. Maybe try a little "expose to the right" theory more so to help keep that noise under control whilst pulling the exposure back to that moody dark you want.

 

[sashbar]

I like them too, looks like you have a good eye, no wonder you are dissatisfied.
I think most of the problems are more technical and this is absolutely natural bearing in mind your relatively limited experience.

I like the first one. I think it is close but no cigar sort of shot. The idea is good, the problem is the execution. As far as I see the girl is separated from the scene by the flash and it all does not look good. The background, the street demands more attention with its lights and strong diagonals that always create some tension and drama. There is movement and life in the bkgnd, there are several diagonals that keep the foreground and the background together, and I want the girl to be more part of it. Handheld camera flash shot just does not work here, however good you are. It just needs a different technique. The street in my view should be sharp and detailed with the contrast between solid buildings and moving cars leaving lights behind them . Probably a longer exposure could work better here. So, hello tripod.
By lighting the close object with the flash you make the background flat and devoid of real depth, strong shapes and shadows that add to the mood and drama. You basically make the background dull. So, as far as I am concerned - good scene, great composition, questionable execution.

I like the second one as well - nice moody pose, dramatic contrast and a good attempt to show the character, and it does shine though, but again, a lot of technical problems with harsh light, shadows not worked properly and other things that I will leave to portrait pros here who know it much much better than me. Still, not a bad shot in my book.

Third one is in a way a repetition of the first one. Similar composition, completely different technical decision. No dynamic diagonals though, quieter horizontal lines, large space and you tried to complement it with subdued "vintage" colour, still some drama as well with distant lights of the ship and dark silhouette on the foreground with some wind in her hair... that all shows that you are sensitive to this kind of things, which is great. Again, technically, this one is probably the weakest. Composition is a bit too tight, the light is , well difficult, we see less of the girl than we would want to, there are no details whatsoever in her silhouette, no shadow gradation, it is all black. It is a tough shot to be honest in such a low light. You are trying to pull difficult shots, I must say. I personally would not even try that, I feel it needs some preparation, including some delicate use of lights/reflectors. And a really good shot of this scene is probably beyond my expertise.

All in all I would say there is nothing wrong with your photography. With just six months of shooting it can be considered as a god progression.

Just my 2 p. We are all different.

Did I say god progression? No, it is nothing close to that. It is just good. Not god.

 

[limr31]

I quite like the look and feel of all of them. Both #1 and #3 tell stories, and different ones at that, even though computationally, they are very similar pictures. The 1st one looks bittersweet but somewhat triumphant, like the woman is overlooking a city she feels she has conquered. The 3rd one speaks of longing and sadness. And yes, I'm wondering if you shot it on film or if it's a scan of a print or something - not because of the look of the photo but because of all the dust spots.

 

[DavidVote]

I find the darkness to be enjoyable in these shots. One could argue that shot 1 is underexposed, however whilst that would be likely true "histogram" wise I don't think it would be true artistically speaking.

It's got a moody feel that is very different from a muddy "underexposed" feel. If it were presented as part of a portfolio of similar work I think that effect would be enhanced.

Shot 2 certainly follows the same story pattern, its dark, but it doesn't feel like it wants nor needs more light nor that you've underexposed and got it muddy.

Shot 3 feels a little more muddy, the effect of making it look like an old film shot is likely masking that a little (we are conditioned/used to seeing pretty technically poor film shots so they "appear" more correct than technically "weak" digital shots).


Overall I'd say you're off to a good start; you're not working the way most are with bright vibrant shots, but you've got a clear eye for what you're after. I'd say work on that - work on noise control and editing that to keep that under-wraps. Maybe try a little "expose to the right" theory more so to help keep that noise under control whilst pulling the exposure back to that moody dark you want.

Oh god! Perhaps I should lay off adding in noise (I was actually wanting to add in film grain); but if it looks bad, I'll remember not to add in so much next time.

I like them too, looks like you have a good eye, no wonder you are dissatisfied.
I think most of the problems are more technical and this is absolutely natural bearing in mind your relatively limited experience.

I like the first one. I think it is close but no cigar sort of shot. The idea is good, the problem is the execution. As far as I see the girl is separated from the scene by the flash and it all does not look good. The background, the street demands more attention with its lights and strong diagonals that always create some tension and drama. There is movement and life in the bkgnd, there are several diagonals that keep the foreground and the background together, and I want the girl to be more part of it. Handheld camera flash shot just does not work here, however good you are. It just needs a different technique. The street in my view should be sharp and detailed with the contrast between solid buildings and moving cars leaving lights behind them . Probably a longer exposure could work better here. So, hello tripod.
By lighting the close object with the flash you make the background flat and devoid of real depth, strong shapes and shadows that add to the mood and drama. You basically make the background dull. So, as far as I am concerned - good scene, great composition, questionable execution.

I like the second one as well - nice moody pose, dramatic contrast and a good attempt to show the character, and it does shine though, but again, a lot of technical problems with harsh light, shadows not worked properly and other things that I will leave to portrait pros here who know it much much better than me. Still, not a bad shot in my book.

Third one is in a way a repetition of the first one. Similar composition, completely different technical decision. No dynamic diagonals though, quieter horizontal lines, large space and you tried to complement it with subdued "vintage" colour, still some drama as well with distant lights of the ship and dark silhouette on the foreground with some wind in her hair... that all shows that you are sensitive to this kind of things, which is great. Again, technically, this one is probably the weakest. Composition is a bit too tight, the light is , well difficult, we see less of the girl than we would want to, there are no details whatsoever in her silhouette, no shadow gradation, it is all black. It is a tough shot to be honest in such a low light. You are trying to pull difficult shots, I must say. I personally would not even try that, I feel it needs some preparation, including some delicate use of lights/reflectors. And a really good shot of this scene is probably beyond my expertise.

All in all I would say there is nothing wrong with your photography. With just six months of shooting it can be considered as a god progression.

Just my 2 p. We are all different.

Did I say god progression? No, it is nothing close to that. It is just good. Not god.

The first shot was actually taken at around noon, and without flash. But I completely agree with you on every point you made except the street being sharp. I wanted the subject the be the center of attention, no question asked. And to add onto your own critique, the cars should be been moving away and out of the from, not towards.

Would you edit my second shot to show me what'll look good for you? This was actually a really bad shot straight out of the camera because of my lack of lighting equipments.

And third one, agreed with everything you've said.

 

[DavidVote]

I quite like the look and feel of all of them. Both #1 and #3 tell stories, and different ones at that, even though computationally, they are very similar pictures. The 1st one looks bittersweet but somewhat triumphant, like the woman is overlooking a city she feels she has conquered. The 3rd one speaks of longing and sadness. And yes, I'm wondering if you shot it on film or if it's a scan of a print or something - not because of the look of the photo but because of all the dust spots.

Sadly, no. It wasn't shot on film. It was just processed to look like film since I really like the look of film. Can't afford the constant cost of film and can't afford a scanner aha

 

[Overread17 5]

Film grain is certainly different to digital noise - however sometimes its a taste thing as to if it does or doesn't work. I'd say if you enjoy the effect then invest time into really learning how to simulate film grain well (its a skill in its own right). You might land on an ideal process that really carries off the effect well; though it might be something that you have more appeal with in print than in digital (people are very used to going for clean digital shots - esp on forums).

 

[DavidVote]

Film grain is certainly different to digital noise - however sometimes its a taste thing as to if it does or doesn't work. I'd say if you enjoy the effect then invest time into really learning how to simulate film grain well (its a skill in its own right). You might land on an ideal process that really carries off the effect well; though it might be something that you have more appeal with in print than in digital (people are very used to going for clean digital shots - esp on forums).

I've actually already done a ton of research and searching into that topic. Do you have any tips or pointers on how I could simulate the film grain better without it looking "noisy"?

 

[480sparky41 40]

I will say this:

It's d@?<ed refreshing to have a newcomer who isn't all cocky and full of himself. Doesn't sign up to boast how great he is now that he's got a camera and a Facespace page.

One who actually admits needing help, then honestly listens and tries to learn.

 

[soufiej]

Is it normal to never be satisfied with snapshots you take? I mean, I go onto Flickr looking at these awesome pictures that people take, then after browsing around for a while, looking back at mine I just cringe. Sometimes I want to throw my camera at a wall and be done with photography. Granted I've only been shooting for about half a year but what other people could achieve in their photos is just unbelievable and is both discouraging and encouraging at the same time. I've gone weeks without shooting a single picture and find it so hard to get the motivation to knowing that next picture isnt going to satisfy me.

Several decades ago I was in my favorite camera shop buying something. Probably spending money on a few dollars worth of film and hoping for a few hundred dollars worth of advice and encouragement The shop was a single store, family owned business which had been around since the mid 20th c/. It is now long gone, which is too bad. They not only had excellent gear for any budget, they catered to the moneyed populace of Dallas but would take time with anyone at any experience level and usually had at least one professional photographer behind the counter who would work in the store every now and again just to keep their heads in what the public was talking about and to discuss what they enjoyed doing. The shop sponsored camera safaris where the pros could work with a crowd or one on one with the clientele. They also handled the processing of the film so they saw lots of shots go through their business everyday. Dozens of the most memorable photos taken by the shop's regular's lined the upper shelves around the store's interior. One shot in particular (a late summer in West Texas, Big Sky Country, sunset full of dazzling colors and dramatic light levels back and top lighting a weather worn mesquite wood fence with the Davis Mountains range in the background) caught my eye as I was talking and discussing, learning and taking in all I could manage on a slow, cold and drizzly grey as grey afternoon where the store was mostly empty of paying customers. The photo was, to be short, SPECTACULAR! in my estimation. A shot that, had I taken the photo, with that one image alone I would have called myself a photographer. I asked the pro how one goes about taking such a shot.

Knowing, of course, that I had been struggling with a few of the finer technical aspects of shooting which we had been discussing for the last hour, he withdrew the stub of a cigarette from his lips, flicked the long ash onto the floor and without hesitation he said, "You take one thousand shots before that one ... and you throw away most of them." The implication was obvious, there would always be the one thousand you take before "THAT" one comes around and there would be the hundreds you discarded. Great luck, the virtue of patience to wait and to look - possibly for days - for just the right timing, lots of talent and immense skills all had to come together at just the right moment to get "THAT" shot. "THAT" shot was not a one off, pack it all up and go home in time for dinner shot. However, as suggested in another post, a lot of planning, waiting, thinking, walking around looking and trial shots had gone into "THAT" one shot. And it all paid off because that shot was a keeper of the timeless sort.

Keep in mind when you see an image that intimidates you or that humbles you, there were probably dozens, maybe dozens of dozens, of shots taken by that photographer of the same situation. Hundreds in preparation for THE shot. And hours of patience to see just what the photographer wanted to capture on film. With digital equipment this is especially important IMO since you can shoot one thousand images and toss out 999 without costing yourself a dime. The skill, the talent and the patience are what's going to cost you. None of that changes the fact many (none?) of the images you see which cause you to want to throw your camera against a wall (really?!) were ever one time around and you get the brass ring situations. Quite honestly, I don't know how you - or anyone new to cameras - could possibly be pretty adept at the technical aspects of photography after just a few months. Not to say you may not understand them but getting them in your head to the point you can recall them without really thinking about them and translating that innate knowledge to your hands and eye is not something that just comes IMO. No more, that is, than the student musician who has been studying for a few months should expect to be playing like the musician who has dedicated years and even decades of study and practice to their work. Even if you had the great skills to have all that in your head by now, getting it on the printed image is something else entirely.

I would say, until you become wildly famous and recognized so widely to the point dark images become your trademark style ... Eh! You should work to please yourself, of course. However, until that time and that fame comes around, you should consider your audience too. Ever go to a college theater department performance? Filled with students pleasing themself but not at all making their intentions known to the paying audience. In a world filled with an overabundance of contrarians, most folks just don't and won't take the time to work out what the rebel is rebelling against and how they are doing it.

There are several threads on the forum which basically cover how people have learned. Same questions being asked on dozens of other forums depending on which skill and talent is being combined; playing an instrument, cooking, golf, etc. People who have been at something for months wanting to know when their product will be as good as ... Since we all learn and assimilate information in our own way it's probably best if you just sort of spend some time with those threads trying to find your spark and inspiration.




Can you put into a few short sentences why you became interested in photography? What made you pick up a camera? What are your goals for the next month? Six months? One year? Long term? Surely, you must want more than to throw cameras at walls.

How have you gone about your learning process up to now? Formalized and structured? Or, scatter-shot and whatever interests you today? What do you plan on doing to achieve the goals you have set out for the future? Saying something like, "I want to shoot great images", isn't a goal. Most likely, we all do. Most of us will only ever have a handful of shots, at best, others will remember. Goals need to be within your reach if they are to be achieved. Sometimes you simply need to be taught how to set realistic goals which you can achieve through a planned approach to learning. Learning is a process which takes this week's lesson and builds upon learned skills from last week's lesson and so on and so on. Only after a very solid and well structured foundation has been laid down and proven worthy does the process begin to build upwards and outwards. Expanding one level at a time until the project is completed. No one starts by building the fiftieth floor first.

What's your process and how do you plan to achieve your goals?

 

[DoctorDino]

I really like the first picture, David. I'll admit I do most of my shooting at night, and I'm a fan of darker pictures. But it is beautifully underexposed imo. It's nicely composed and has a cool gritty feel to it. I can definitely see where some would say it wasn't executed properly, but I really like it.

I'm not as big of a fan of the other two, but I can definitely see that you have your own style going. You need to get out and shoot more. Get inspired. Keep working and doing your own thing.

Forget about trying to be "as good" as other photographers, and do your own thing and have fun with it.

 

[The_Traveler]

Hey, thanks for the hard criticism! Much appreciated.

For #2, I can't see it looking any other way. I went into the shot looking for a photo that sort of (very loosely) resembles what you see there. I wasn't completely satisfied with the result (pose isn't how I wanted) so I've been scheduling a reshoot with the girl. But the color-wise, it is 80% close to how I wanted the end result to look. Perhaps you could edit the edit to something that would look better in your eyes? If you want, I could definitely upload a tiff of the RAW file so you could start from scratch.

I like the hard look but what the light does to her skin detracts because I end up being really aware of the skin surface and not her eyes.

As for #3, I myself wasn't quite sure what I wanted to do with the photo. I just thought, hey, maybe I could try this and get a cool looking picture. But if it didn't work, thanks for telling me . Were you confused on whether it was shot with film or digital? Or is the just the pose by the subject?

Yes, I assumed it was edited digital - and the look is great.
What hurts this for me is that the outline of the figure is so confused.
I assume it's a person but that's all I get so it's hard to fit a story around it.

I'd like a chance to try editing the first.
either put a link to a tiff or raw or send it to me directly.
I will PM my email.

 

[Gary A.]

All of these can significantly be improved in post.

#1 is underexposed and generally 'muddy'. I would add contrast via Levels or Curves. The horizon is tilted and that tilt is distracting. You're using the rule of thirds which is always a safe way to frame. I like the light rail leading to the young lady. If this was my image I'd go B&W and slightly darken the roadways just a smidgeon. Adding contrast will be tough in this image because more contrast = less detail ... and you don't want to lose detail in the shirt, the hair, even the thigh-gap ... et al. So be careful. In post, moving sliders typically is a two-way street, you gain something and you lose something, so be careful with the sliders. (If you have an advanced post processing program, you can select the your lady and process the background different than the subject. But you are better off learning "how to get it right" in the camera first before learning "how to get it right" in post.)

#2 is rather nice actually, but still not enough contrast for my tastes. I'd like the lighter areas darkened, (especially the bridge of the nose and the lower cheek/jaw), and the shadow on the face to show a bit more detail and a bit more contrast. The division between light and dark on the chin is so strong it has created a harsh line ... I'd blend that line for a smoother transition. The shadow and bright area on the chest is distracting ... I'd completely darken that area just to see if a darken chest is significantly better than your original image. I find the top framing slightly awkward. You slightly clipped the top of the head ... typically when you slightly clip/crop a part of the body one's initial impression is, the clip/crop is unintentional ... a mistake. This is a nit because the dark hair and dark background sorta hide the clip/crop. Again, if this was my image I'd crop just a bit to make the framing appear intentional.

#3 Again, the subject is dark blue ... I'd like to see it as black. I'd add a bit of selective contrast from the top of the mountains/landmass down and maybe slight darken the clouds. Please explain why you added dust and scratches to the image. The easy answer is "I want to make it look like film ..." and I get that ... but typically pro film photographers rarely have dust and scratches on their photographs ... so by adding dust and scratches you emulated a photograph from a bad film photographer not a good film photographer.

Good Luck and Good Shooting,
Gary

PS- Thank you for calling for calm from those contributing to your thread. I respect you taking that lead. Many here are passionate about photography and often that passion is reflected in their posts.
G