People Cappuccino Frown

jzietman · 04-19-2010, 12:49 AM

This I believe I posted in the film shots thread, but I'd love some comments on it. I'm not totally happy with it yet. This is a scan of my Acros 100 film, scanned with a Nikon Coolscan 4000ED, and touched up a bit in Lightroom, but that's it. It was recently torn up as being fake and not about anything in my college photo class, but I'd love for some more specific critiques. Knowing her, that face isn't at all fake, but I guess only I would know that...

Last edited by jzietman; 12-16-2010 at 09:03 PM.

jct us101 · 04-19-2010, 12:54 AM

I don't think that this is fake at all, and I don't really know why anyone would. The biggest issue here is your focus though. There's nothing that should be totally in focus where it should. When taking a photo like this you're going to want to get her nose and lips in focus, and if you can, the edge of the cup that is the closest to her. You don't want to get her jacket in focus, nobody really cares about that, and it's pretty obvious that is where you centered your focus. If you're wondering what to do with this photo as it is now though, there's not really much you can other than maybe a few adjustments, but I think in it's current state, although it's not the best focus on your model, I don't think that there is really much that you can improve here, it's technically perfect, other than some of the artifacts and specs from the darkroom processing. I like it though.

Tuner571 · 04-19-2010, 02:13 PM

Well, firstly I like the composition of the photo and I like the model as well. It really looks like she just got out of bed and needed that cup of coffee to get her going in the morning. If that is what you were trying to go for with this photo, consider it a success. Another thing I really like about this photo is the black and white treatment that you used here as it really adds to the mood of the image. Unfortunately, this photo is being hurt by the same problem as some of the other photos I have looked at today and that is the soft focus. You mentioned that you used a really wide open aperture and I bet that is the source of your problem. I know that using the lens wide open gives that beautiful blurry background, but unless you are using really good glass you will not a get sharp photo. As I said today, once you start to bring up the aperture your photos are going to look great and I really look forward in seeing what you will come up with.

Cory

icywarm · 04-19-2010, 02:15 PM

I assume you wanted the light flare from the back lighting and you are ok with the hexagon bokeh.

She does pop from the background and other than changes to DOF as mentioned above, this picture has elements that are more about style vs technically being wrong.

For instance... some could say the deep shadows on her lower eyes age her, but I view them as "bags" showing her need for that cup of coffee... they ask the question, why does such a young girl need coffee... out at the bar, up studying, does she have a new friend in her life... the expression on her face hint that something stopped her from getting to this drink sooner... the large sun glasses where there to protect her from the bring morning light coming in through the windows...

or something like that...

why do you think it seemed fake?

jzietman · 04-19-2010, 02:56 PM

My photo professor declared that the expression (something about the slightly pouty lips, I'd guess) was too much, too posed. Part of the training of the class is in looking at our photos objectively, so I'm not allowed to say whether I posed it or not, etc (well, if I said that, I'd have to bring doughnuts for the class to the next week's critique, not that bad a punishment). I'll try to get more of his critique out of him next Monday, when we have our end-of-semester, one-on-one critiques of everything I've printed since January...

I do like the slight flare, but I wonder about the hexagonal bokeh. Maybe it's just because I have relatively cheap/old glass (this is a Super-Takumar 55/1.8), but I almost always get that shape of bokeh. Does the round bokeh I've seen around come from lenses with more blades or something? What could I do to get the rounder bokeh?

icywarm · 04-19-2010, 03:13 PM

It has to do with the number/type of blades on the lens... so you have no control of it... it is just part of the lens buying experience, ask how the bokeh is, how many points to the star or shape of highlights... The star will have twice as many points as blades and the bokeh will be equal to the blades... there are exception... some lens have rounded blades, to give a around highlight with say only 6 blades...

**rparmar** · 04-19-2010, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by jzietman

My photo professor declared that the expression (something about the slightly pouty lips, I'd guess) was too much, too posed. Part of the training of the class is in looking at our photos objectively, so I'm not allowed to say whether I posed it or not, etc (well, if I said that, I'd have to bring doughnuts for the class to the next week's critique, not that bad a punishment).

Not to knock your prof, because maybe there's more to it than what you are saying but... that doesn't make sense. First of all, the trick is not to look at things objectively, but rather critically, which is not the same thing. In fact it's pretty naive to be teaching photography and use words like "objective" unless it's an adjective coming before "lens".

Secondly, everyone (in our society) has such a complete learned experience of what it means to be photographed that it is strictly impossible to avoid "poses" unless you sneak up on someone unawares.

Next time, tell him/her that the whole purpose of your shot was to explore the human reaction to being photographed.

Personally, I don't mind the expression. Maybe if you had an uglier model your prof would be happier?

The only thing I like in that description of the class process is the doughnuts.

The technical issues have been covered so I will not address them.

Originally posted by jzietman

I do like the slight flare, but I wonder about the hexagonal bokeh. Maybe it's just because I have relatively cheap/old glass (this is a Super-Takumar 55/1.8), but I almost always get that shape of bokeh. Does the round bokeh I've seen around come from lenses with more blades or something? What could I do to get the rounder bokeh?

Have a look through your lens as you stop it down and see the shape of the aperture. Is there a place where it is more or less circular? Maybe wide open? That would have to be where you use it to get round bokeh.

But instead I would use your tools for what they are, with the properties they have. Concentrate more on your subject and how you represent it, less about the tool.

Thanks for sharing and all the best in your studies!

jzietman · 04-19-2010, 06:56 PM

Our class is more about critique than being "objective" or talking about "the lens" or something, that's more language ingrained in me by academia at the moment (I'm slowly breaking free, but clearly it's still seeping in). The class, Photo I, is really about taking pictures of interesting, personal, story-full subjects rather than technical perfection, though technical stuff is appreciated. Photo II next year will help me more with the technicals.

AOShep · 04-20-2010, 06:43 AM

I think you accomplished what you were suppose to. It's too bad her hands are not in focus. Otherwise, you should be pleased with this one. So just take you profs critique with a grain of salt and enjoy the doughnuts.

**rparmar** · 04-20-2010, 07:04 AM

Thanks jzietman: I didn't mean to be too negative about the class process. But neither did I want to pepper the post with emoticons. I guess the word "objective" got me off on one!

For what it's worth, the process of sharing and critiquing work in a group is extremely valuable. Since I do not have that locally, I have come to appreciate the internet for it. But it can be difficult to find people critical enough, and with a critical vocabulary to boot.

Originally posted by AOShep

So just take you profs critique with a grain of salt and enjoy the doughnuts.

Salt with doughnuts? You barbarian!

johnmflores · 04-20-2010, 12:51 PM

Maybe what your professor is getting at is that your subject is clearly aware that you are sitting across from her with a camera up to your face. While it may not be posed, her expression has an air of waiting-for-the-photo-to-be-taken look about it.

What I will often do in situations like this is talk to the subject while I have the camera up to my eye. Once the words leave my mouth and enter their ears, I'm not just a camera anymore, I'm their friend/companion/partner/etc again. Something funny helps here, or anything that makes them take off their mask, if only for a moment. That's when I snap.

Still, it's a good photo. Well done!

icywarm · 04-20-2010, 01:04 PM

Ok trying not to hijack this thread too, but now I have a question... which I guess could be moved to a new thread...

How much do people talk with their models, subjects, etc... I imagine that it changes with how posed you want them to be... but I like it when say the kids mom talks to the kid and I just shot photos...

Oh wait I can make this about the OP... were you talking with her, did she need to wait for you to set the camera, was this a one click deal, or the 30th in 5 mins?

jzietman · 04-20-2010, 01:29 PM

I was talking to her; we were having breakfast. Though I doubt I was talking as I set up the shot. I took three shots total, this is my favorite of them, but they all came out well.

Here are the other two, for comment, if you like. Viewed as a series, I think the last one (while more generic, a smiling girl) is also more candid than the other two, as if she's laughing at the face she's been wearing for the camera. In these second two, I have edited the exposure, contrast, etc., but not yet played with cropping. If anything, I'd probably crop out that little bit of chair in the bottom right corner.

johnmflores · 04-20-2010, 02:53 PM

The three would actually make a nice triptych, but you are still present in all of them.

If your professor as seeking more of a photojournalist approach where the photographer is invisible, then, while these are nice they aren't it.

jzietman · 04-20-2010, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

The three would actually make a nice triptych, but you are still present in all of them.

If your professor as seeking more of a photojournalist approach where the photographer is invisible, then, while these are nice they aren't it.

This is an art class, not a photojournalism one (I'm a photojournalist for the school paper and maybe, someday, if I get really good, as a career). The class is really about have the photos be about something. The first question we're always asked is "what is this about?" followed by "how so?"

My question about these three photos is really what they are about. I'm still learning how to separate myself from photos of people I am close to, separating what I could know because I know the model versus what I could know by looking at the picture. The same is true, for instance, in another of my posted photos, the thread called "Slight Frown, Slight Smile." This thread has been really helpful for me with the first photo, and by extension the rest of them, I think.

What do you all think of the cropping of the first image versus the second two? I kind of like the off-centered model in the second two, but then there's that thing in the bottom corner.

04-19-2010, 12:49 AM	#1
jzietman Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Salem, MA / New York City, NY Posts: 224	Cappuccino Frown Lens: 55mm (Super-Takumar, 55/1.8) Camera: Spotmatic SPII Photo Location: Rome ISO: 100 This I believe I posted in the film shots thread, but I'd love some comments on it. I'm not totally happy with it yet. This is a scan of my Acros 100 film, scanned with a Nikon Coolscan 4000ED, and touched up a bit in Lightroom, but that's it. It was recently torn up as being fake and not about anything in my college photo class, but I'd love for some more specific critiques. Knowing her, that face isn't at all fake, but I guess only I would know that... Last edited by jzietman; 12-16-2010 at 09:03 PM.

04-20-2010, 01:29 PM	#13
jzietman Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Salem, MA / New York City, NY Posts: 224 Original Poster	I was talking to her; we were having breakfast. Though I doubt I was talking as I set up the shot. I took three shots total, this is my favorite of them, but they all came out well. Here are the other two, for comment, if you like. Viewed as a series, I think the last one (while more generic, a smiling girl) is also more candid than the other two, as if she's laughing at the face she's been wearing for the camera. In these second two, I have edited the exposure, contrast, etc., but not yet played with cropping. If anything, I'd probably crop out that little bit of chair in the bottom right corner. Last edited by jzietman; 12-16-2010 at 09:03 PM.

04-19-2010, 12:54 AM	#2
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	I don't think that this is fake at all, and I don't really know why anyone would. The biggest issue here is your focus though. There's nothing that should be totally in focus where it should. When taking a photo like this you're going to want to get her nose and lips in focus, and if you can, the edge of the cup that is the closest to her. You don't want to get her jacket in focus, nobody really cares about that, and it's pretty obvious that is where you centered your focus. If you're wondering what to do with this photo as it is now though, there's not really much you can other than maybe a few adjustments, but I think in it's current state, although it's not the best focus on your model, I don't think that there is really much that you can improve here, it's technically perfect, other than some of the artifacts and specs from the darkroom processing. I like it though.

04-19-2010, 02:13 PM	#3
Tuner571 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,549	Well, firstly I like the composition of the photo and I like the model as well. It really looks like she just got out of bed and needed that cup of coffee to get her going in the morning. If that is what you were trying to go for with this photo, consider it a success. Another thing I really like about this photo is the black and white treatment that you used here as it really adds to the mood of the image. Unfortunately, this photo is being hurt by the same problem as some of the other photos I have looked at today and that is the soft focus. You mentioned that you used a really wide open aperture and I bet that is the source of your problem. I know that using the lens wide open gives that beautiful blurry background, but unless you are using really good glass you will not a get sharp photo. As I said today, once you start to bring up the aperture your photos are going to look great and I really look forward in seeing what you will come up with. Cory

04-19-2010, 02:15 PM	#4
icywarm Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Saskatchewan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,278	I assume you wanted the light flare from the back lighting and you are ok with the hexagon bokeh. She does pop from the background and other than changes to DOF as mentioned above, this picture has elements that are more about style vs technically being wrong. For instance... some could say the deep shadows on her lower eyes age her, but I view them as "bags" showing her need for that cup of coffee... they ask the question, why does such a young girl need coffee... out at the bar, up studying, does she have a new friend in her life... the expression on her face hint that something stopped her from getting to this drink sooner... the large sun glasses where there to protect her from the bring morning light coming in through the windows... or something like that... why do you think it seemed fake?

04-19-2010, 02:56 PM	#5
jzietman Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Salem, MA / New York City, NY Posts: 224 Original Poster	My photo professor declared that the expression (something about the slightly pouty lips, I'd guess) was too much, too posed. Part of the training of the class is in looking at our photos objectively, so I'm not allowed to say whether I posed it or not, etc (well, if I said that, I'd have to bring doughnuts for the class to the next week's critique, not that bad a punishment). I'll try to get more of his critique out of him next Monday, when we have our end-of-semester, one-on-one critiques of everything I've printed since January... I do like the slight flare, but I wonder about the hexagonal bokeh. Maybe it's just because I have relatively cheap/old glass (this is a Super-Takumar 55/1.8), but I almost always get that shape of bokeh. Does the round bokeh I've seen around come from lenses with more blades or something? What could I do to get the rounder bokeh?

04-19-2010, 03:13 PM	#6
icywarm Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Saskatchewan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,278	It has to do with the number/type of blades on the lens... so you have no control of it... it is just part of the lens buying experience, ask how the bokeh is, how many points to the star or shape of highlights... The star will have twice as many points as blades and the bokeh will be equal to the blades... there are exception... some lens have rounded blades, to give a around highlight with say only 6 blades...

04-19-2010, 05:38 PM	#7
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	Originally posted by jzietman My photo professor declared that the expression (something about the slightly pouty lips, I'd guess) was too much, too posed. Part of the training of the class is in looking at our photos objectively, so I'm not allowed to say whether I posed it or not, etc (well, if I said that, I'd have to bring doughnuts for the class to the next week's critique, not that bad a punishment). Not to knock your prof, because maybe there's more to it than what you are saying but... that doesn't make sense. First of all, the trick is not to look at things objectively, but rather critically, which is not the same thing. In fact it's pretty naive to be teaching photography and use words like "objective" unless it's an adjective coming before "lens". Secondly, everyone (in our society) has such a complete learned experience of what it means to be photographed that it is strictly impossible to avoid "poses" unless you sneak up on someone unawares. Next time, tell him/her that the whole purpose of your shot was to explore the human reaction to being photographed. Personally, I don't mind the expression. Maybe if you had an uglier model your prof would be happier? The only thing I like in that description of the class process is the doughnuts. The technical issues have been covered so I will not address them. Originally posted by jzietman I do like the slight flare, but I wonder about the hexagonal bokeh. Maybe it's just because I have relatively cheap/old glass (this is a Super-Takumar 55/1.8), but I almost always get that shape of bokeh. Does the round bokeh I've seen around come from lenses with more blades or something? What could I do to get the rounder bokeh? Have a look through your lens as you stop it down and see the shape of the aperture. Is there a place where it is more or less circular? Maybe wide open? That would have to be where you use it to get round bokeh. But instead I would use your tools for what they are, with the properties they have. Concentrate more on your subject and how you represent it, less about the tool. Thanks for sharing and all the best in your studies!

04-19-2010, 06:56 PM	#8
jzietman Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Salem, MA / New York City, NY Posts: 224 Original Poster	Our class is more about critique than being "objective" or talking about "the lens" or something, that's more language ingrained in me by academia at the moment (I'm slowly breaking free, but clearly it's still seeping in). The class, Photo I, is really about taking pictures of interesting, personal, story-full subjects rather than technical perfection, though technical stuff is appreciated. Photo II next year will help me more with the technicals.

04-20-2010, 06:43 AM	#9
AOShep Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Eastern PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 293	I think you accomplished what you were suppose to. It's too bad her hands are not in focus. Otherwise, you should be pleased with this one. So just take you profs critique with a grain of salt and enjoy the doughnuts.

04-20-2010, 07:04 AM	#10
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	Thanks jzietman: I didn't mean to be too negative about the class process. But neither did I want to pepper the post with emoticons. I guess the word "objective" got me off on one! For what it's worth, the process of sharing and critiquing work in a group is extremely valuable. Since I do not have that locally, I have come to appreciate the internet for it. But it can be difficult to find people critical enough, and with a critical vocabulary to boot. Originally posted by AOShep So just take you profs critique with a grain of salt and enjoy the doughnuts. Salt with doughnuts? You barbarian!

04-20-2010, 12:51 PM	#11
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Maybe what your professor is getting at is that your subject is clearly aware that you are sitting across from her with a camera up to your face. While it may not be posed, her expression has an air of waiting-for-the-photo-to-be-taken look about it. What I will often do in situations like this is talk to the subject while I have the camera up to my eye. Once the words leave my mouth and enter their ears, I'm not just a camera anymore, I'm their friend/companion/partner/etc again. Something funny helps here, or anything that makes them take off their mask, if only for a moment. That's when I snap. Still, it's a good photo. Well done!

04-20-2010, 01:04 PM	#12
icywarm Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Saskatchewan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,278	Ok trying not to hijack this thread too, but now I have a question... which I guess could be moved to a new thread... How much do people talk with their models, subjects, etc... I imagine that it changes with how posed you want them to be... but I like it when say the kids mom talks to the kid and I just shot photos... Oh wait I can make this about the OP... were you talking with her, did she need to wait for you to set the camera, was this a one click deal, or the 30th in 5 mins?

04-20-2010, 02:53 PM	#14
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	The three would actually make a nice triptych, but you are still present in all of them. If your professor as seeking more of a photojournalist approach where the photographer is invisible, then, while these are nice they aren't it.

04-20-2010, 03:37 PM	#15
jzietman Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Salem, MA / New York City, NY Posts: 224 Original Poster	Originally posted by johnmflores The three would actually make a nice triptych, but you are still present in all of them. If your professor as seeking more of a photojournalist approach where the photographer is invisible, then, while these are nice they aren't it. This is an art class, not a photojournalism one (I'm a photojournalist for the school paper and maybe, someday, if I get really good, as a career). The class is really about have the photos be about something. The first question we're always asked is "what is this about?" followed by "how so?" My question about these three photos is really what they are about. I'm still learning how to separate myself from photos of people I am close to, separating what I could know because I know the model versus what I could know by looking at the picture. The same is true, for instance, in another of my posted photos, the thread called "Slight Frown, Slight Smile." This thread has been really helpful for me with the first photo, and by extension the rest of them, I think. What do you all think of the cropping of the first image versus the second two? I kind of like the off-centered model in the second two, but then there's that thing in the bottom corner.