Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

submit a photo to the urban75 critics

Unless photo's are badly overexposed in important areas then I don't worry about it too much, especially b&w ones, I think they look more dynamic. The best photo's aren't always the correctly exposed ones imo.

In the one of your blokey, yeah could do with burning areas in if there's anything left in the originals to get back - the dandelion one reminds me of one I took

http://www.pbase.com/barking_mad/image/58282618
 
Stanley Edwards said:
^^^

Excellent :D

I was so pissed and stoned last night I barely remember reading this thread nevermind posting. I can be an arrogant tosser at times.

Thanks for taking the time to view and critique. I'll try and be a bit more constructive in critiques in the future :D

I think we should all swap photos for critique here. Be as nasty and knock each others pics down as much as possible. Then try and argue for your own case. Very difficult to do!
Click to expand...
Well, I'm up for another round if you are.

I've been turning what I've learned from our previous exchange over in my mind. And I've tried to pick three more photos on that basis.

If you don't mind, I'm going to try to keep my intention to myself until it's my turn to comment (assuming you're up for it again) The reason for this is probably obvious if you think about what I learned from the previous round.

For the same reason, no titles this time.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Chester/DSC_0006_4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Chester/DSC_0056_2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Local Produce for Local People/DSC_0064_1.jpg
 
Bernie Gunther said:
...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Chester/DSC_0006_4.jpg

...
Click to expand...


I like this one and I'm not entirely sure why. That is a very good thing IMO. The photographs I like most are the ones that work for reasons I can't phathom.

Compositionally it's very simple and very graphic. There are three obvious layers of depth that draw you in - the foilage, the wall and the window. The lighting hepls take you through the photograph. I like it but, it should work better.

I'm sure I have a better example of mine somewhere online to compare but, I'm going to use this shot to demonstrate layers and depth:

14.jpg



Even though I like your simple composition I think my example uses very graphic lines to direct the eye into the distance more dynamically. Hate that word. However, there's sod all in the distance other than a void of ocean nothingness. This brings the eye back to the forground after a little thought to look more carefully at what's going on. The foilage in my case is much more subtle - slimey moss but, it's an equal example of nature winning over like your ivy.

Where you shot takes the eye directly into the distance mine sends the eye back into the foreground. In your shot the viewer hits a dead end very quickly also but, there is perhaps a a little to much going on to give the wall and ivy the prominence it needs.

Not absolutely sure about any of this. Like I say, I like pictures that work because I'm not why they do.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Chester/DSC_0056_2.jpg

...
Click to expand...


Chester is a shit place. It's bit like Shrewsbury and to close also. This type of shot does nothing for me. I also have a personal dislike for candid shots of people. It would be unfair of me to say anything about the content.

Compositionally it's a little to uninteresting. A bit like you were just walking along, saw the guy and put camera to eye to take a picture without really looking at the entire scene.

Something interesting going on with the black and white tudor architecture and the B&W banner but, that is about all.

No comparrison amongst my own stuff.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Local Produce for Local People/DSC_0064_1.jpg
Click to expand...


Candid shots of people like this make me cringe. However, I do see the skill/luck in catching comedy moments in real life. I have agreat deal of respect for the eye and mind of Paul Russell here but, I just dislike candid photographs like this. For me it's whimsicle nonsense.

I do like a lot of street photography. However, again I do very little myself and put very few pictures of people on the web. The only one's I do put on the web are shots I know the people will like themselves.

This one:

17.jpg


Is obviously posed. I was taken simply beccause I was asked to take it. I liked the kids and wanted to do a good job. It's photograph that all three of them would be very welcome to have a copy of for free in 20 years time when they will really value it for what it is.

--/

Let's not do candid people shots :D
 
Stanley Edwards said:
beccause I was asked to take it. I liked the kids and wanted to do a good job. It's photograph that all three of them would be very welcome to have a copy of for free in 20 years time when they will really value it for what it is.

Let's not do candid people shots :D
Click to expand...

I prefer candid shots (that are well done) to portraiture, and in the same breath I don't dislike all portraiture, just most of it! I like self-portaits done oddly enough, as long as they're not proper vain. There's some really good nudey stuff out there but much of it looks like soft porn / glamour.

I really like this self-portait, and it was done by a 12 year old kid!

 
riot sky said:
I prefer candid shots (that are well done) to portraiture, and in the same breath I don't dislike all portraiture, just most of it! I like self-portaits done oddly enough, as long as they're not proper vain. There's some really good nudey stuff out there but much of it looks like soft porn / glamour.

I really like this self-portait, and it was done by a 12 year old kid!

Click to expand...


Yup. The kids don't know the same boundaries and conventions that all of us 18 pluses are force fed. They have new ideas. Give them a camera and a little bit of knowledge and wham bham.

I was relatively lucky as a child. First camera (a kodak instamatic from tokens collected off the back of cornflakes packets) came as a birthday present. My mother was an art teacher at that time and the developing was occassionally done in the darkroom. Very primative, very basic and very affordable in a modern context. However, as a six year old in 1973 I was definitley one of the rich kids.

Today, I see perfectly good Samsung 5MP cameras for €69 and less. PC's are very affordable and knowledge costs nothing but time. A very good 35mm film point and shoot can cost less than a tenner new!

All good news for the kids and new ideas and photography/art in general. Not that any of it's likley to be recognised mind.
 
Stanley Edwards said:
I like this one and I'm not entirely sure why. That is a very good thing IMO. The photographs I like most are the ones that work for reasons I can't phathom.

Compositionally it's very simple and very graphic. There are three obvious layers of depth that draw you in - the foilage, the wall and the window. The lighting hepls take you through the photograph. I like it but, it should work better.

I'm sure I have a better example of mine somewhere online to compare but, I'm going to use this shot to demonstrate layers and depth:

14.jpg



Even though I like your simple composition I think my example uses very graphic lines to direct the eye into the distance more dynamically. Hate that word. However, there's sod all in the distance other than a void of ocean nothingness. This brings the eye back to the forground after a little thought to look more carefully at what's going on. The foilage in my case is much more subtle - slimey moss but, it's an equal example of nature winning over like your ivy.

Where you shot takes the eye directly into the distance mine sends the eye back into the foreground. In your shot the viewer hits a dead end very quickly also but, there is perhaps a a little to much going on to give the wall and ivy the prominence it needs.

Not absolutely sure about any of this. Like I say, I like pictures that work because I'm not why they do.
Click to expand...

Thanks Stanley. Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I've been engrossed in something most of the weekend.

Your shot:

First impression was, yuck, ugly hotel or something. Off-putting initially.

Second impression was the business with angles. I think I see what you mean about making the viewer look at the foreground. It's almost a study in vanishing points and the emphasis of the relevant lines reinforces that.

Maybe 'cos I'm seeing it low-res, the slimy roof thing in the foreground doesn't look as interesting as it sounds like it was for you. I can't really make it out, and know more about it from your description than my eyes.

Mine:

I like mine a bit better, because I found the subject inherently pleasing. I was fascinated by the weathering on the pale panels, I thought they were some sort of alloy at first and only realised it was wood of some kind when looking at the photo. The ivy thing was fortuitous and I only noticed it when I put my eye to the viewfinder and tried to frame an interesting shot.

I do see what you mean about the initial journey of the eye through the internal spaces being a short one, possibly unresolved due to the hard to identify red-black stuff seen through the far window (more dirty sandstone)

I'm glad you liked my photo, and if I didn't like yours much, I learned something useful from it, the stuff about leading the eye back outwards.
 
Stanley Edwards said:
Candid shots of people like this make me cringe. However, I do see the skill/luck in catching comedy moments in real life. I have agreat deal of respect for the eye and mind of Paul Russell here but, I just dislike candid photographs like this. For me it's whimsicle nonsense.

I do like a lot of street photography. However, again I do very little myself and put very few pictures of people on the web. The only one's I do put on the web are shots I know the people will like themselves.

This one:

17.jpg


Is obviously posed. I was taken simply beccause I was asked to take it. I liked the kids and wanted to do a good job. It's photograph that all three of them would be very welcome to have a copy of for free in 20 years time when they will really value it for what it is.

--/

Let's not do candid people shots :D
Click to expand...

Yours:

I like this one a lot better. The subjects are immediately engaging.

Looking at the elements of the picture, it's all pretty strong and centred. The triangular grouping posed against the central rectangle could hardly be more so and this enhances the subject matter. The overall effect is to reinforce the viewer's instant impression of a strong bond between the three kids, that's created by the way that they're posing together. Very nice.

From what you said about your intentions, I think you succeeded admirably.

Mine:

I swapped this one at the last minute. I suspect that you might have preferred the picture that was there originally. No matter. Your reaction was interesting. I'd not tried this sort of thing before, so I was sort of experimenting wildly in this set. Now you mention it I can imagine why you might find grabbing slices of other people's lives in this way distasteful. I'm not quite sure what I think of it myself, but it does seem rather more invasive than any other sort of photography I've tried my hand at so far. On the other hand, if I imagine going out deliberately looking for that kind of stuff, I can feel vague stirrings of what might be paleolithic hunting urges.

Just because we've evolved to want to do certain kinds of things, doesn't automatically make them ethical though. I shall have to think about this.

The candid shot in question, only really caught my eye when I was looking at the RAW files to see what I'd brought home. What I liked about it was the multiple intersecting gazes. The only person not looking intently at someone else was the distracted looking guy in the foreground. The blonde is staring at his back in a way that makes it look like they've had a row. The young boy is gawping, perhaps hormonally, at the blonde and the 'Don't Look Now' lady in the background is gazing, apparently critically, at the whole scene, perhaps including the photographer.

I found the whole thing fascinating, but I'm now questioning whether this is a healthy kind of fascination, or some other kind. Have I correctly identified the reason for your distaste for this type of candid photography or do you feel that way for reasons unconnected to the ones I'm talking about above?
 
Bernie Gunther said:
I found the whole thing fascinating, but I'm now questioning whether this is a healthy kind of fascination, or some other kind. Have I correctly identified the reason for your distaste for this type of candid photography or do you feel that way for reasons unconnected to the ones I'm talking about above?
Click to expand...


That's about it. And, the fact that once an image has been published on the web it can be recirculated very easily and even presented out of context.

I'm just camera shy basically. That's why I'm a photographer. I have had to overcome my 'fear' of having my photograph taken whilst painting on the streets. many people even ask to have their photograph taken with me. They think I'm going to be a famous artists one day - I erm... 'sell' myself a little to well sometimes :D
 
This is my 2nd attemped a bit to light but not worked that out yet. It did seem the longer I keep shutter open the more the preset of light when up (F2) - some thing :D

red lights of the back of the car is white not red :confused:
 
thedyslexic1 said:
...

red lights of the back of the car is white not red :confused:
Click to expand...


I like this.

The lights from the cars are 'burned out' for the same reason that some of the leaves on the trees are white and not 'green' or, more correctly orange.

Under street lit conditions you are seeing the world in monochrome (usually). You only see light at the frequency the street lights are emmitting. That frequency is usually a very narrow bandwidth (orangey).

It confuses digital receptors as much as it confuses film. Although film is easier to compensate.

In normal daylight, which is around 5500K (Kelvins) we see the world via reflected panchromatic light. In street light we only see the world reflected in the colour emmitted by the street lights.

Try looking at your shot as a black and white image and you may understand a little better.

I like it lots. Good photo IMO.
 
Chorlton said:
anyone do nature photos? anyone got the patience for it? what do people look for in nature photographs? is it a potrait of the animal looking noble or is it doing something a little out of the ordinary? or dramatic action
Click to expand...

I haven't the patience, skill or the gear for it to be honest. I do have every respect for those who do because it is hard work but when it goes right, the reward is worth the effort.

Of the three, the one that really stood out for me was 'something a little out of the ordinary'. Superb composition and the movement has been captured well. Also works the best because it has been cropped pretty tightly.
 
irpower.jpg


Been pissing around with this for a bit. It was shot in infrared. As for PP, I changed the hue to bring the sky back to blue, and changed saturation a little, but that made it noisy and horrible, so I did something with Noise Ninja and masks. Think I got there eventually.
 
Cheers! :D I've just chopped out some more noise in the clouds that I spotted, and put it up again. Hard getting the balance between noise & detail right!

I love infrared. It has a habit of making everything ace.
 
RenegadeDog said:
Any views on this pic? This is one I took of my uncle-in-law with RD Jr earlier. Ok I know usually we don't post family pics or whatever on this thread, but I thougt this photo looked really stunning.

Any views?

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6095/minimisedunclexo8.jpg
Click to expand...
Right - it is a great shot for the expressions. Could definitely compose a little better; more of the bottom edge and then a tighter crop, mainly to lose some of the clutter at the top. Hard to tell how to improve the colours/contrast etc, partly because I'm on a laptop and partly because people shots are much more subjective. Maybe a little more punchy. Depends what you're up for in terms of Photoshop - it strikes me as a very good shot to learn things with, like blurring out the background, filters, various tutorials etc.
 
mauvais said:
Right - it is a great shot for the expressions. Could definitely compose a little better; more of the bottom edge and then a tighter crop, mainly to lose some of the clutter at the top. Hard to tell how to improve the colours/contrast etc, partly because I'm on a laptop and partly because people shots are much more subjective. Maybe a little more punchy. Depends what you're up for in terms of Photoshop - it strikes me as a very good shot to learn things with, like blurring out the background, filters, various tutorials etc.
Click to expand...

Cheers - yeah I haven't really got into photoshopping etc yet. Whenever I try it, I seem to stuff it up totally...
 
portman said:
Two shots of Vondelpark in Amsterdam taken on Wednesday last week when it was misty. Not quite sure which of these two works the best in terms of capturing the atmosphere of a misty, quite sombre autumn day. I'd be interested to have your views...

Cheers,
Dave

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/dam_oct06_22.html

...or

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/dam_oct06_21.html
Click to expand...

Aesthetically speaking, I prefer the reflections one. But I think the first one perhaps captures that sobre, misty feel you refer to.
 
Was thinking about that layered and depth thing - I don't know if this has enough of either but I had it as a background for a while - I may have been a bit close too, but I'm a bit of a point and click person...

tintern023pm6.jpg
 
J77 said:
Was thinking about that layered and depth thing - I don't know if this has enough of either but I had it as a background for a while - I may have been a bit close too, but I'm a bit of a point and click person...

tintern023pm6.jpg
Click to expand...

I like that a lot :cool:

and yer maybe a bit too close but the colours really zap out at you :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

weltweit
Recommend me a good cloud photo backup
Replies
20
Views
323
weltweit
weltweit
N
Online photo storage recommendations?
Replies
12
Views
351
UnderOpenSky
UnderOpenSky
stethoscope
Photo books (portraiture, landscapes, wildlife, social commentary, street)
Replies
11
Views
518
Fozzie Bear
Fozzie Bear
hiccup
Casio wrist camera photos on U75
Replies
4
Views
398
RoyReed
RoyReed
Cloo
Help Anyone who can photoshop help me with something for my other half's birthday
Replies
13
Views
469
Cloo
Cloo
Back
Top Bottom