[Leica] RE: Weeks 48 & 49 posted

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

Ric Carter said and showed:
Subject: [Leica] RE: Weeks 48 & 49 posted


> In terms of composition, I guess both are essentially 
> photojournalistic--no one is posed and elements and timing are a product 
> of random forces and the foot work and lens grab of the 
> photographer--making the best of the hand you are dealt.<<<<<<<<

Hi Ric,
The above sounds a tad like an apology for two very fine photographs. I mean
>>>making the best of the hand you are dealt<<<< Isn't worth saying as the 
>>>photographs are fine with little or no fiddling. Hell if it were an 
>>>absolute perfect world everyone would be as good as Henri Cartier Bresson 
>>>or whatever your favourite flavour of photographer.

Or the reverse, we'd all be our worst nightmare shooter. Boring what! ;-)


Quite frankly I'd be very pleased to have taken either as they are. I mean 
any photograph can be worked over by others with all kinds of well meaning 
suggestions. But after the fact analysis of how good it could have been if 
this that and every other thing were done is pointless when someone tries to 
nit pick fine photographs apart.

>  On the first
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/PAW-2004-North-Carolina/Week_48
> I got off a couple of other shots, position along the tracks was a little 
> different, but position of man's limbs was more animated here. Columns on 
> the overpass were also a bit better shown.
> I would have liked to have a bit less unfocused stuff foreground left, but 
> I didn't get there quickly enough. Track entrance to frame is cliched, I 
> agree.<<<<

It's called excellent editing and picking the best for obvious reasons, your 
point of view!

So who cares about >>I would have liked to have a bit less unfocused stuff 
foreground left<<But until you pointed that out, it never was a part of my 
viewing the picture. Besides that's an easy fix whether film or digital. 
Just burn it down slightly! Fixed. ;-)

>>>Track entrance to frame is cliched, I agree.<<<<

Baloney! It's where it should be if the picture is composed properly! Where 
the hell would you have had it enter if it was in a different location to 
help support the whole frame? It's only cliched if you put up 20 photogaphs 
and every frame was composed identically!

> On the second
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/PAW-2004-North-Carolina/Week_49
> I guess I've always tended to crop more loosely than is considered kosher 
> (for newspaper work anyway). I dropped the edge of a boathouse off this 
> composition at right. What really frustrated me was not having the tops of 
> the trees in the reflections. I would have preferred more complete 
> symmetry, but didn't have it at frame bottom. I looked at cropping the 
> frame top to get symmetry, but couldn't bear losing the curve or the tree 
> tops. In final composition, I will likely try to get the lower half 
> density closer to that of the top to accentuate the mirror effect.<<<<<<<<

>>I guess I've always tended to crop more loosely than is considered kosher 
>>(for newspaper work anyway). <<<<<<

Well yeah but that goes with the territory of shooting and cropping for a 
newspaper! Doesn't apply here! So you crop as your gut tells you to crop!

The boathouse you cropped out would probably look like a stick in element as 
it isn't missed here.

And yeah I agree the tops of the trees would've been nice in reflections, 
but it isn't a major point as the fisherman and boat are so strong they 
basically lock your eye right there in the fog.

And yes a very slight burning in of the lower left reflection is a good 
idea, but man that has to be soooo subtle.

Very nice pictures thanks for posting.
ted