[philbaum]

A nearby coop gallery runs a juried art show with a total of $7000 in prizes for 3 categories of art, sculpture, painting and photos. Artists may apply from the state but they only accept 50% of the applicants, on average. Last year i got in, didn't win any prizes but my forest photo sold in the subsequent gallery show. This year i wanted to submit some edgier stuff. Would this do?

Any suggestions appreciated!!!

[joelovotti]

I like the composition but I'm sorry to say the expression on the face of the subject just doesn't work for me. He doesn't seem to fit in the mood of the shot.

I would give it another try and work with the subject to convey the mood you are going for.

[jimH]

I like the composition but I'm sorry to say the expression on the face of the subject just doesn't work for me. He doesn't seem to fit in the mood of the shot.

I would give it another try and work with the subject to convey the mood you are going for.

I disagree with the previous opinion. I think his facial expression is very good. I would give it a try. I'm not a professional, but I do like people and I like his expression. Not at all out of touch with the photo. Very somber and in tune with the photo.

[NicoleAu]

I quite like this shot, the expression is (to me) one that fits the atmosphere. Although I can also see a version with the head tilted down more and perhaps the hands up, as though warding something off, that is beyond the viewers sight...

[Wombat]

The lighting, mood and setting are very absorbing and there's a nice air of mystery surrounding the figure. If it were me, I'd crop out the right-hand window completely. The concrete structure hasn't any clearly-defined meaning, yet it's lit up so that you can't avoid looking at it. It shares the limelight with the figure. Maybe that's what you want, but I'd prefer to have the man looking out towards the edge of the window frame, leaving it up to the viewer to imagine what he's looking at. He has a very Alfred Hitchcock look to him, which I like.

[philbaum]

I very much appreciate the range of comments, to be expected for something of this nature. Thats what i wanted - and geez, to be compared to the master . Loved his movie "rear window" where james stewart played a photo journalist, of course.

[Ash]

I think it's a very classic look with unique lighting. The framing whilst intentional doesn't add enough context, but that'd be a location limitation - it's a very well captured image.

[Myn.pheos]

The lighting, mood and setting are very absorbing and there's a nice air of mystery surrounding the figure. If it were me, I'd crop out the right-hand window completely. The concrete structure hasn't any clearly-defined meaning, yet it's lit up so that you can't avoid looking at it. It shares the limelight with the figure. Maybe that's what you want, but I'd prefer to have the man looking out towards the edge of the window frame, leaving it up to the viewer to imagine what he's looking at. He has a very Alfred Hitchcock look to him, which I like.

I think the window frame helps to separate the figure and fits with the title, the frame makes the person outside alone. But at the same time, there might be something inside (other than the photographer ). The facial expression (or the lack of any expresion) is also fine. But what is distracting is the small bright line in the frame and the A-like sign on the corridor wall (or what it is).

[pjthiel]

I looked at this picture before stepping out this morning for a few hours, and I've been pondering it ever since.

While I enjoy the photo, something about it has been troubling me. At first, I thought it was the expression on the man's face; but I've since decided that is not it. Then, I considered the overall scene and composition–inside, shooting outward–along with the expanse of window and outside detail; neither accounts fully for my reservations.

Looking at it again just now, I think I've narrowed it down to the lighting and "manufactured mood" of the shot. The lighting is just too bright, causing an excess of light on the man's face (thus reducing the character in his expression) and creating a subject of the wall outside, where I suspect none was intended.

You could still attempt to rework this shot in PP by:

• Reducing the overall exposure
• Patching the artifacts around the window frame (bottom and top, right-hand side)
• Adding some graduated filters to the wall outside to reduce/darken the detail.

Thoughts?

[philbaum]

I quite like this shot, the expression is (to me) one that fits the atmosphere. Although I can also see a version with the head tilted down more and perhaps the hands up, as though warding something off, that is beyond the viewers sight...

dramatic thinking - i like it

The concrete structure hasn't any clearly-defined meaning, yet it's lit up so that you can't avoid looking at it. It shares the limelight with the figure. ...

Pls go to the youtube site and search for interviews with NY Photographer Gregory Crewdson. In one of his interviews, he talks about the use of "ambiguity" in his images, e.g. providing clues, but letting the viewer decide the story. I have this favorite image from Henri Cartier Bresson and showed it to a friend one day. The interpretation i got back was totally different from mine. Is this bad...I'm coming around to Crewdson's point of view that its a useful tool. (PS-where do i send the check for the comparison to Hitchcock )

I think it's a very classic look with unique lighting. The framing whilst intentional doesn't add enough context, but that'd be a location limitation - it's a very well captured image.

Context is something i worry about, is there enough there to make some sense of it. Do you see the cavern or tunnel as a feature? I don't care if one can reach a conclusion about the story, but it needs to be recognizable as a feature. If not, then thats a problem and i should work on it.

I think the window frame helps to separate the figure and fits with the title, the frame makes the person outside alone. But at the same time, there might be something inside (other than the photographer ). The facial expression (or the lack of any expresion) is also fine. But what is distracting is the small bright line in the frame and the A-like sign on the corridor wall (or what it is).

A-like sign. Hadn't thought too much about that scratching, but if anything, i'd enhance it. the bright line is a warped frame, but i think you're right about it being distracting - i'll probably get rid of it.

I looked at this picture before stepping out this morning for a few hours, and I've been pondering it ever since.

The lighting is just too bright, causing an excess of light on the man's face (thus reducing the character in his expression) and creating a subject of the wall outside, where I suspect none was intended.


....Thoughts?

I'm not seeing excess light on the man's face, are you sure you don't have the monitor too bright? I'll do a test print at a local printing service to confirm its ok. Pardon me for saying so, but the fact that you've been thinking about it is a big success. Apparently the average time for a contest judge to look at any one picture is about 7 seconds. Thank you! (i can't lose the wall, its a part of the subject)

In general: I appreciate the give and take on these critiques - worth the price of admission to PF for sure!!!!

[pjthiel]

I'm not seeing excess light on the man's face

I suspect this is subjective and likely a matter of opinion; and even I may not be settled on exactly what's throwing me.

Pardon me for saying so, but the fact that you've been thinking about it is a big success

Agreed ... and you are welcome. I am spending a lot of my time in the photo critique section of the forum as it helps me learn... a lot. As a relative newcomer to (digitial) photography, understanding what does and doesn't make a picture right is important. I've quickly recognized that great pictures are made by skilled photographers–occasionally good luck–and not the "gear" they are using.

I'll keep thinking about it...

[philbaum]

I suspect this is subjective and likely a matter of opinion; and even I may not be settled on exactly what's throwing me.



Agreed ... and you are welcome. I am spending a lot of my time in the photo critique section of the forum as it helps me learn... a lot. As a relative newcomer to (digitial) photography, understanding what does and doesn't make a picture right is important. I've quickly recognized that great pictures are made by skilled photographers–occasionally good luck–and not the "gear" they are using.

I'll keep thinking about it...

I don't mean to imply that i'm disregarding what you've written. I'll admit to being pulled between showing some interesting detail in the shadows and sticking to absolute realism. The upper area was darker, i'll take another look at it. Its a fine line to walk between keeping it real and showing detail, IMO.

[pjthiel]

I don't mean to imply that i'm disregarding what you've written

Oh ... not at all; I certainly didn't mean to imply that you had. I truly just mean that something relatively subtle, such as zonal lighting, is likely to be subjective. Perhaps there really is a "correct" answer, but I doubt it.

To show you what I mean, here's what I was thinking:



I've applied a couple of graduated filters; one top to bottom, and one right to left. Each reduces the exposure by ~1ev, with the graduation ensuring that not too much detail is lost from the lower left corner, where our primary subject is. But it does reduce the interference from the other lighted surfaces outside, and in particular the tunnel entrance.

I also eliminated the bright light seeping through the top, right hand side of the window frame, and eliminated the "A" scrawled on the wall of the tunnel. I also just reduced the glare on the character's jacket "badge".

Anyway ... five minutes work in LR and not even on the RAW image, but worth trying. To be honest, I'm sure you've tried something similar many times already.

What do you think?

[philbaum]

I've applied a couple of graduated filters; one top to bottom, and one right to left. Each reduces the exposure by ~1ev, with the graduation ensuring that not too much detail is lost from the lower left corner, where our primary subject is. But it does reduce the interference from the other lighted surfaces outside, and in particular the tunnel entrance.

I also eliminated the bright light seeping through the top, right hand side of the window frame, and eliminated the "A" scrawled on the wall of the tunnel. I also just reduced the glare on the character's jacket "badge".

Anyway ... five minutes work in LR and not even on the RAW image, but worth trying. To be honest, I'm sure you've tried something similar many times already.

What do you think?

Well i think it looks better. Darkening that upper right quadrant does emphasize the tunnel and the subject better. I'm not sure what i want to do about some of the details but really appreciate the help on the toning!

[Wombat]

I've just got it! Couldn't figure out why people were talking about a tunnel entrance, then I blinked and it was like one of those optical illusion puzzles. I thought the brightly lit section in the right window frame was some indeterminate concrete block. Now I can see it's the inside wall of the tunnel entrance. Stick a shadow of a man holding a gun on it and it'll be straight out of a 1950's British thriller.

And you can send the cheque to Medecins Sans Frontieres....