Re: [Leica] Chicken Beak Defamation

[Guy Bennett <gbennett@lainet.com>]

Doug,

Checked out your pix, and will second Slobodan's suggestion that you get
closer; filling the frame with your subject (and thereby eliminating
background clutter), you will create a more compelling image, IMO. You
might also want to consider shooting as wide open as possible to throw the
background out of focus and further draw attention to your (in focus)
subject.

I think it would also help to give some thought to what the image will be
about before you take the shot. For example, in:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=230831

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=230836

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=234381

you've got people of more or less equal size moving and/or looking out of
both the left and right side of the frame and not interacting in any way,
which makes one wonder why they are in the same picture together. Why not
close in on one figure and make it clear that it is your subject, whether
you eliminate the second one altogether or at least reduce its importance
in relationship to the main one. For example, the "angel" in the third
image above is a strange figure; why not hone in on it and show us - in
detail - what is so unusual about it. (BTW, as these statues are usually
brightly painted, maybe color film would have been more appropriate here.)
Doing so, you would eliminate the guy sweeping (or whatever he's doing) in
the background, since he doesn't have anything to to with the angel, which
is what I think you've chosen as your subject.

I often find myself trying to figure out how to leave as much of the
inessential as possible out of my photos. It's not always easy, and I
frequently don't even bother to shoot if I'm see that I'm going to get too
much clutter detracting from my subject (because it's in the background,
because it's right next to my subject, because I can't change position,
etc). In a way, for me picture taking is an exercize in visual editing:
leaving out everything that doesn't contribute to the image I'm trying to
create. Mies almost had it right: less is actually less, and photography is
an art in which less is frequently better.

Guy


>I just added a shot of the Chicken Beak Defamation perpetrated by the
>Chicken Beak Terrorists on my portfolio of photos from the first meeting of
>the LA LUG.
>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=121017
>I can take the good and the bad comments and/or ratings.
>Doug