Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/04/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]on 4/26/01 11:38 AM, B. D. Colen at bdcolen@earthlink.net wrote: > > CONTEST OVER - AUSTIN WINS..:-) hmmmm... there's something fishy going on here... can't quite work out what... could have something to do with this previous post from BD... > Tom Finnegan wrote: >> >> . >> >> Arrival - 35/1.4 >> I would have preferred either a slightly wider view with more of the Mother >> and the person holding the infant, or a closer shot of just the infant and >> hands >> > CORRECT - The lens guess, not the analysis. ;-) > > >> Mother - 20/2.8 >> The cut off foot bothers me a bit, I would have liked the frame shifted down >> slightly > > CORRECT on the lens >> >> Juggling - 85/1.4 >> I might have liked a view slighly shifted to the left to get a bit of the >> baby's face and put the mother against the light background > > Wrong - 28 1.4 Nikon >> >> Take My Picture - 85/1.4 >> The hand sticking out of the kid's head ruins it for me > > WRONG - 35 1.4 Summilux ASPH - > >> >> TV - 50/1.5 >> Shift slightly to the right, also the father looks to be blinking > > WRONG - 35 1.4 >> >> Sisters - 75/1.4 >> take the shot from a tiny bit further back to get the tip of the chair back >> and the one foot of the gal on the right > > WRONG - 85 1.4 > > >> Secrets - 180/2.8 >> the tops of the glasses and straw (?) are distracting, maybe a shot from a >> slightly higher perspective (stand on a chair) could clean it up a bit >> > > WRONG -85 1.4 > > >> Over Tired - 85/1.4 >> take one step to the right to eliminate the other young girls arm and the >> dark object on the right(dresser?) > > CORRECT >> >> Reading - 28/1.4 >> I find the chopped off feet slightly annoying and I don't care for the yawn >> , with the highlights blown out it looks like some kind of freaky porcelain >> doll > > >> >> Nick and Opus - 21/2.8 >> I don't like the chopped off head, and I don't care for crotch shot >> perspective, perhaps shot from a bit to the right or from a slightly higher >> viewpoint > > CORRECT > >> New Dad - 35/1.4 >> without the title I wouldn't have a clue as to what was in the bin, you need >> to get in closer >> > > You're probably right as to the lens, although I think it may have been > the 21 >> > Mars and Venus - 20/2.8 >> shift frame up a bit to get less empty table and more ceiling where the >> light is now cut off, also maybe shift slighlty to the right or move a bit >> to get more of the gal on the right, what is going on here? >> > > WRONG - 28 1.4 > >> Flower Girls - 60/2.8 >> shift frame up slightly to get top of door frame and tell the two yahoos in >> the background to get out of the picture > > WRONG 85 1,4 > >> Fairy Princess - 35/1.4 >> the bright out-of-focus object on the left is a bit ditracting > > CORRECT > >> Center of Attention - 20/2.8 >> back up just a tad to get the baby's fingertips and feet as well as the >> ladies head > > CORRECT > >> Close - 60/2.8 >> This is probably my favorite, my only suggestion might be to play around >> with toning down the bright spot between the boys > > CORRECT > >> Chasing Rex - 28/1.4 >> hard to tell what the heck is going on here, the area around the kids and >> dog(?) looks blotchy, was this dodged? > > WRONG - 21 ASPH > >> Big Brother - 28/1.4 >> shift frame up a bit to get all of the trike in the background and perhaps >> just a fraction to the right, good action shot > > WRONG - 85 1.4 > >> Napping - 75/1.4 >> shift perspective a bit to the left to get some of the baby's eyes and face > > WRONG - 35 1.4 > >> Alicia - 75/1.4 >> shift perspective to a slightly higher viewpoint to eliminate some of the >> oof blanket (?) in the foreground that is so annoying > > WRONG - 85 1.4 > > >> After Dinner - 50/1.5 >> back up a half step and shift a bit to the left so that the lamp isn't >> sticking out of the one gals head, and the gals foot on the right isn't >> chopped off > > WRONG - 85 1.4 > >> Minus One - 21/2.8 >> without the title I'd be hard pressed to know what was happening, looks like >> just a record shot of who was there, maybe shift frame slightly to the left >> and back up half a step to get a bit of the ceiling in > > CORRECT - I think, but it may have been the 35. >> >> Farewell - 35/1.4 >> again can't really tell what the heck is going on, you need to move to one >> side or the other to get a better view of the casket, small boy (?) and >> three women > > CORRECT >> >> Ok, so had I do? >> >> Tom Finnegan >> Seattle > > You can see how you did - pretty poorly for someone with such strong > opinions about how given photographs should be taken and what would make > them better. > > Now I know I it's bush of me to get annoyed at the kind of "constructive > criticism" you've so freely provided. And I know that when I post photos > I ask for feed back. So you are, of course, entitled to your opinions of > the photos. BUT - Given your admission of having very little > photographic experience, I'd suggest throwing away the books and the art > 101 course and getting out and spending 15 hours with a family, or 17 > hours in a labor/delivery room, or attempting to take photos at a > funeral without outraging those whose loved one has died, and then look > at your photos and see if they are shot "correctly" by the standards you > set here. > > B. D. - -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com