One 125W tungsten bulb (modeling light from a flash), mounted on a light stand. Bracketed exposure, using Toyoview 45GXII on some old weird Majestic tripod. Film is polaroid 57(?) ISO 3200 film. Unfortunately, this film leaves no negatives, so Roese's pose lies trapped on print - at least until she comes back from Chile.

Does this picture look old sk000l enough? I dig the more formal portraiture of females from the middle part of last century, especially when used on females of today.

-- Edward Kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), February 26, 2000

Answers

Maybe it's the scan, but all I see is a picture of a face (with what looks like a Somthing-About-Mary hairstyle) and a picture of a hand (and an ugly chair back?) separated by a lot of black.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), February 26, 2000.

Well, yeah, if you want to deconstruct the image into its various parts, then that's what it is :) Or is that a subtle hint? Here's the +1 over bracketed exposure:

Is that any better?

-- Edward Kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), February 26, 2000.

I like the first one more, it's more mysterious for some reason. And the wave-thing in the hair of Part 2 is a little distracting. Overall, I think it conveys what you wanted.

And I agree with Jeff (in the post following this one): why does everything seem so bloody serious with these critiques? Most of the time, it's like nobody has anything good to say.

There's constructive criticism, then there being just plain miserable (even if it's masked in a mockingly half-pleasant tone):

buy a dog for that, eh?...or visit your mother-in-law; then come back and, for christsakes, smile once in a while.

:-)

shawn

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), February 26, 2000.

Thanks for the comments, Shawn.

I am just getting into available light photography in a studio fashion (i.e. setting things up for artistic appeal) since I have never done that before (believe it or not). Any and all comments are appreciated on technique, possible ways to enhance the picture, etc. In no way is this picture some kind of pinnacle of my work :)

I was a self-taught photographer, and while I'm still learning, I did most of my stuff photojournalist style.

-- Edward Kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), February 26, 2000.

I am going to quote my favorite line from my conversations with Shawn..."Looking at these two prints, I automatically think you should go for the one that is in between."

I like the shot very much, Edward. The use of Polaroid really gave the skin a nice tonality. If I was to point out one thing that bothers me, it is the right arm. It seems to disappear into the background. It would be nice to see just a small curve of light outlining that arm.

-- David Hou (dna2367@hotmail.com), February 26, 2000.

I like the first, dark one. The only thing that bothers me is that the chair is so much brighter than anything else in this picture.

-- Rolf Rosing (rcrosing@dds.nl), February 27, 2000.

I'll be different; I really like the second Image however it needs to be cropped from the top of the back of her head (the high point of her hair) to the bottom of the charm on her necklace. Than from the left of her head (camera right) right up against her hair to the second or third wave of hair on her right side (camera left) I think it makes a very nice pensive, portrait some what strong and with a definite visual appeal.

-- Artie (Artie@Sunbeach.net), February 27, 2000.

I am going to quote my favorite line from my conversations with Shawn..."Looking at these two prints, I automatically think you should go for the one that is in between."

Amusingly enough, I gave the "perfect exposure" to Roese, so um...I can't scan it in for you, but I agree with you. Heheh.

OK, here are some crops, let's see what some cropping can do for a picture.

-- Edward Kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), February 27, 2000.

Edward that third one does it for me. IMO but this is a subjective thing. I, however do like it this way very much.

-- Artie (Artie@artiephotography.com), February 27, 2000.

I like the (30's-40's)mystery/glamour "feel of the first one ..maybe with a lttle more fill(reflector?) to bring out the left(hers) side of the face. The (bright/distracting) side of the chair, hand and general background add nothing to the photograph, for me. I'd do a verically oriented crop just below the v-neckline...considerably reducing the sides of the shot. I think I prefer the 2nd (obviously) open mouth, to the 1st (not closed OR really open). ...might prefer "closed" to either, though.

-- LARRY H. SMITH (LarryHS@WEBTV.NET), February 27, 2000.

I prefer all the crops to the originals and the lighter of the two originals. The chair arm is a major detriment to the images. As an aside, this seems an odd way to work... lightbulbs, polaroid, 4x5... what's up with all that? You've made the process of learning studio portraiture incredibly convoluted...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), February 27, 2000.

I prefer all the crops to the originals and the lighter of the two originals. The chair arm is a major detriment to the images. As an aside, this seems an odd way to work... lightbulbs, polaroid, 4x5... what's up with all that? You've made the process of learning studio portraiture incredibly convoluted...t

I agree with y'all. That white stepstool (not a chair :) is kind of a sore thumb with the subtlety that was supposed to be in the scene. I will remember to include elements in the scene that don't blow the contrast out wildly!!

As for the lightbulbs, polaroids and 4x5's. I usually do things on 35mm, but I tried an exercise on these 4x5 just for the heck of it. It was really tough to get everything right. The polaroid film that i was using was the only 3200 speed emulsion that is available, AFAIK. Therefore, it was a natural for the type of illumination i was looking for (single incandescent bulb.) I realize that it's much easier to learn using powerful spots or strobes, but that wasn't the effect of what I was going for at the time :)

Otherwise, I agree with what you're saying :)

-- Edward Kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), February 27, 2000.

Talk about old horses,t, you just can't deal with chairs can you! But in this case we agree, MUCH better without the chair (my vote goes to #1 by the way, I like the horizontal crop).

-- steve vancosin (steve1chsn@aol.com), February 28, 2000.

i think your first crop of the second image would look great on the first image. got that? actually, i like this quite a bit, when cropped. you were completely successful in your announced intention to summon up the 40's-50's nuance. of course, the terrific bone structure doesn't hurt, either.

wayne harrison

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), February 28, 2000.

The only thing more cruel than an honest critique is a disingenuous one.

This is a bad picture. No amount of cropping will change that. There is no evidence of a concern for composition - or of a control of lighting and the resulting tonality of the print. The subject is posed in such a manner as to emphasize the bad points of her features. Her hair style is inappropriate for a portrait and, particularly with this lighting, looks bizarre.

This print has nothing in common with portrait techniques from the 1940's - or even the 1840's (since From Edward's comment, and this picture, I'm not even sure which century he is talking about).

Mind you, I often create prints with as little redeeming value as this one - but I catch them in the first edit.

Take a look at Robert Altman's "St. Annie" for a similar shot that shows control over all these elements. (Remember to take out any extraneous spaces when you copy the following url.)

http://www.visto.com/?club=/visto/groups/fashion.jkantor&service=filep hoto&method=view&tx=n1y&filename=photo/John+Kantor/Annie_fr.jpeg

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), February 29, 2000.

This is a bad picture. No amount of cropping will change that. There is no evidence of a concern for composition - or of a control of lighting and the resulting tonality of the print. The subject is posed in such a manner as to emphasize the bad points of her features. Her hair style is inappropriate for a portrait and, particularly with this lighting, looks bizarre.

So:

1) No composition

2) No control of lighting

3) Subject looks ugly

OK, I'll take a look at these things deeper. However, I'd like to ask you what parts of her face are the worst parts of her features? It's difficult to find models with defined bone structure. Most women are shapeless and/or too round.

This print has nothing in common with portrait techniques from the 1940's - or even the 1840's (since From Edward's comment, and this picture, I'm not even sure which century he is talking about).

Welcome to the 21st century, John :P Last century was the 20th. Therefore, mid 1900's. No matter how critical I am with my own work, you'll have to provide me with ample evidence to back up your statement.

Mind you, I often create prints with as little redeeming value as this one - but I catch them in the first edit.

But do you take polaroids on a 4x5 with little redeeming value? It's not like I had ten rolls of 220 at 6x7 to play with.

Take a look at Robert Altman's "St. Annie" for a similar shot that shows control over all these elements. (Remember to take out any extraneous spaces when you copy the following url.)

Took a look, John. I hope you don't me bluntly saying that this Annie picture looks stupid. The model is ugly and the picture makes her look like a hideous crack fiend. Her pose means nothing to me.

I find, in my opinion:

1) No composition

2) No control of lighting

3) Subject looks ugly

I would enjoy it if you could follow your message up with something that says other than, "this image is worthless."

At this moment, without constructive information, your comments amount to nothing.

-- Edward Kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), February 29, 2000.

Jeez, Eddie, you asked for opinions and you got them. And here's another. Just because you chose to tie both hands behind your back using the equipment and film that you do, don't think that that gives you a cop out for poor results. Perhaps you should be using "ten rolls of 220 at 6x7".

-- steve vancosin (steve1chsn@aol.com), February 29, 2000.

If we are being pedantic, we are not yet in the 21st century, so ...

Looking at the first image on this thread, how do I read it? A girl, in semi-darkness, is holding a white stick. She is staring, not quite at the viewer. Clearly, she is blind.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan@snibgo.com), February 29, 2000.

Steve, I value critique. I have valued all the comments, even the negative ones. You all seem to think that I have some aversion to your negative comments. That is far from the truth! Where in the world do you all get that idea? You all seem more defensive than I am!!???

My critique on some of your attitudes...

You SEEM to think that I am JUSTIFYING my use of crappy equipment. Where do you GET OFF? I don't have enough money for monolights or strobes. I have barely enough money to learn using TMAX400CN in my EOS 300. What, you think I WANT to have my life harder? PLEASE!

You think that if this is considered a "poor result" (which it may be, I'm not quite sure anymore), then I am JUSTIFYING them with my poor equipment? GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSES!

Do you WANT me to hate you, or are your constant deprications of my CHARACTER as opposed to my PHOTOGRAPHY a necessity??

END RANT.

So fine.

According to John Kantor, THIS image:

Is what I should be working toward.

Well, then I'll just give up this available light portrait thing because if I had to work toward this angst-ridden pseudo-artsy crap, then it's not even worth it.

Shawn, delete this thread, because my picture is obviously wasting peoples' time. Thanks.

-- Edward Kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), February 29, 2000.

The greatest influence on my life was my first writing teacher. Not only was he extremely competent and brutally honest, but also publicly derisive if he thought your work sub par. Looking back, I no longer think that his derisiveness was a character flaw so much as a calculated technique to winnow out the weaker willed. (As I recall, it worked extremely well.) Unfortunately, for many, honesty is just as painful. Later, when I taught, I rapidly found out for myself that you could either be your student's friend or mentor, but not both.

In regards to my comments, I'm not expecting you to agree with me - yet. (Rather obviously, since if you did, you wouldn't have posted it.) But I am saying that that is my considered opinion - and one not taken lightly. In fact, that is why my first post was (relatively) more circumspect. However, the subsequent (warm, fuzzy, and misguided) comments, while probably reassuring at an elemental level will not be helpful to you becoming a better photographer - no matter how many sheets of film you have to practice with. My last comment was mainly in response to them. I am not particularly fond of Altman's photo either, but it is, I think, an excellent counterpoint to yours since it is so close in subject matter, tone, and technique, yet so different in execution. And I wouldn't have spent the time and effort to go find it if I didn't think it would be instructive.

The key to becoming a great (or even half-way decent) writer or photographer is learning the art of self-critique. All that another's comments can really do is to get you to re-examine your own critical method. In this case, look at the two pictures and try to determine for yourself what makes them different. Once you can do that, then you can judge for yourself which is preferable. (And we might continue to disagree; conversely, you might might be able to explain your picture to me in such a way that I see it in a new light.) But you will not be able to judge your own picture until you can let go of it emotionally. After all, it is neither the embodiment of your hopes and dreams of being a photographer nor of your relationship with the subject; it's only a piece of treated paper.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), February 29, 2000.

The original darker photo has lots of merit. To simply dismiss it as a "bad Picture" strikes me as a real ego trip on the part of whoever would say that. I mean, who are we critiquing? Are we to hold Edward to the same standards as Avedon or Bresson. C'mon this is just a guy who shares a common interest with the rest of us.

Taking a Vince Lombardi approach to this forum when giving critiques is absurd. Besides even Lombardi gave pats on the back once in a while. The tough love approach to critiquing or teaching is such a cliche, great for anecdotes and the movies, but otherwise totally overrated.

This photo has great mood. I don't mind at all that their is very little if any shadow detail on the shadow side of the face. I feel that the imaged should be cropped to exclude the lower two thirds of the image. But we all realize this is a polaroid, no negative in which to make a cropped print or mainipulate image densities, and 4x5 to boot, technically a very challenging medium. Is it a perfect photo? No. Am I going to patronize Edward with a condescending lecture on what philosophy he should engender to become a great photographer? No.

This thread demonstrates there are many varied opinions when it comes to critiquing a single image. It takes a lot of temerity for one to shout that his is the only right one.

-- Paul Swenson (paulphoto@humboldt1.com), March 01, 2000.

Edward, don't mistake spirited, opinionated and direct criticism with shit disturbing childish taunting. You've received both in this thread.

This is a fairly simple image to critique. Now you're getting apologies and/or flaming from an old pro flamer.

Simplify your set and consider continuity of mood, light quality, light quantity and background/ props. Polaroid is an excellant learning tool but expensive. 4x5 is an excellent but expensive format (especially in polaroid) Barebulb lighting is difficult to use in portraiture. Expect harsh criticism when you use harsh light, lots of folks think portraits require soft light. Some people also think you need to shoot hundreds of frames to get anything worthwhile.

And be careful what you ask for ("Rip me apart!"), you might get it. Don't go away mad... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), March 01, 2000.

". Now you're getting (1) apologies and/or (2) flaming from an old pro flamer."... from different people... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), March 01, 2000.

"The original darker photo has lots of merit. To simply dismiss it as a "bad Picture" strikes me as a real ego trip on the part of whoever would say that."

First, I think I rather clearly explained why it's a bad picture - much more clearly than anyone explained why it's a good one. (If I had found anything to praise, I would have.) I made the effort of finding Altman's photo to show that a lot could have been done that wasn't.

"I mean, who are we critiquing? Are we to hold Edward to the same standards as Avedon or Bresson. C'mon this is just a guy who shares a common interest with the rest of us."

(And that's not patronizing?) I would hope that Edward does aspire to be the next Avedon or Bresson and not to mere mediocrity, and, as such, values real criticism as well as real advice in developing his own critical eye. (If not, then he should confine his posts to his mother's refrigerator!) Taking mediocre pictures without 1) cognizance of that fact, and 2) a conscious method of analyzing the results, merely trains to you take more mediocre pictures.

And I think it's ironic that we're making apologies for Edward based on the equipment he's using. (I'd love to have the opporutunity to work with his camera.) And what better than Polaroids to provide instant feedback - albeit at a price? However, perhaps he should go back to 35mm for its ease of handling and lower cost - starting with still lifes or landscapes in order to work on basic composition (or buying a mannequin like I did). Finally, he should try to replicate (exactly) the style of the great photographers so that he can understand the techniques involved. But most of all, he should look at pictures - not only Avedon and Bresson, but a wide variety of others, like Helmut Newton, Ralph Gibson (see his latest book by Taschen), and Rodney Smith (see some of his work at http://www.pdn-pix.com/legends8/).

Actually, though, all this "discussion" has gotten me interested in working on my b/w technique some more. That, at least, is a good thing from my standpoint.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), March 01, 2000.

Edward, I'm starting to learn that you get what you ask for on the net, because everybody is faceless. You also sometimes get what you didn't ask for, and in such cases I've learned it's best to consider anything truly constructive, even if bluntly or however aggressively said, and to throw out the rest as the irrenavent ranting of those who have nothing better to do. That said, I think the people here mean well for the most part; some people are simply aggressive, and that is a part of who they are. Don't take it personally. And DON'T post anything as far as images go if you are very close to them. I'm the first person to be hurt with a harsh critique, but I've noticed if it's actually a 'critique', then usually within a short time I'm no longer hurt but interested in WHY something was said (and I usually see the light, so to speak...); in the case of irrelavent ranting, from the get-go I think: blow it out your ass moron.

You are a good photgrapher, you'll only get better if you try, and an opinion, especially blind as they are here on the net, is really only that: one opinion in a world of 5.6 billion opinions.

shawn

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 01, 2000.

John, I would hope that Edward doesn't aspire to be a Bresson or a Newton or a Gibson. What's the point of trying to copy someone else's style? All those aforementioned photographers sought out to define the singular clarity of their own vision. (Which, by the way, all artists should do: Edward, myself, anyone). This is why to a certain extent when one runs into criticism that's so diametrically opposed to what one is doing I think you have to take it with a big grain of salt.

There are many different approaches to portraiture that are valid. When I look at Edward's portrait, I don't see it as something done by a polished professional. I see something experimental in nature, with both merits and flaws. So do I judge it by the same criterion that I would judge a published print made by Ralph Gibson? I don't think so.

Now if you are going to come back with a response saying that you do not compromise you critical opinions no matter what the context of the work is because that would compromise you integrity, then we just simply disagree on approach.

My comparison of Edward to the "rest of us" in this forum is not an accusation of mediocrity, that is unless you are assuming that we are all mediocre. I am assuming this forum is made up of photographers of many skill levels, but with a common love (hope that's not too warm and fuzzy). It's just that I assumed that none of us are dead or famous. I apologize to anyone if that's not true.

You obviously have put a lot of thought into your subsequent posts on this thread, and they offer some valid opinions on style and criticism, but my major objection was to your first post which was blatantly adversarial and counterproductive to this forum.

To Edward; I obviously don't know you, and I feel that you're name is being batted around like a beach ball, Thanks for inadvertantly creating an interesting and thought provoking discussion.

-- Paul Swenson (paulphoto@humboldt1.com), March 01, 2000.

I consider my own photography skills mediocre - I just don't intend to settle for that.

As my other thread argues, you have to start with some basic skills - and the best way to learn them is to try to duplicate the work of acknowledged masters. (And, rather obviously, "aspiring to be _an_ Avedon or Bresson" means aspiring to a definable and recognizable artistic style.)

Actually, my first post was the most honest. It wasn't sarcastic or petty, but absolutely truthful. (And let's not go down the road of "The Emperor's New Clothes" - the hair - as it appears in the print - is plainly ludicrous.)

I picked Altman's photo because it too showed a non-professional model (a copy-editor I think), but showed some mastery over the basics of composition and tone.

I do expect an adult (as I'm assuming Edward is) who has a significant investment in time and equipment and who posts to a forum like this, to desire and be able to comprehend honest criticism. I have much different standards when I'm talking to my friend's 9-year-old son, but I was only holding Edward to the same standards I apply to myself. And I have created and continue to create work that is extremely bad at times. (Perhaps I should post those as penance?) However, I consider those failures to be valuable learning experiences. One reason I don't post my work is (as I said before) that I'm a stronger critic of it than anyone else I've come across. I don't want or need the emotional reassurance of the people on this board (I have a cat for that) - I need the interchange of ideas.

Finally, if this is supposed to be a (19)40's glamour portrait, than I would suggest that Edward take a look at the following books (available at Amazon) and try to determine what they are doing to get that look.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0486233529/qid=952008439/sr=1-1 6/103-5554161-8767861

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0486235467/ref=sim_books/103-55 54161-8767861

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0810934345/ref=sim_books/103-55 54161-8767861

It seems to me that this kind of advice is much more useful to Edward than an ill-deserved pat-on-the-back.

Finally, the real problem with boards like this is that posts come across much stronger than the same words in person would. However, I refuse to put little smiley faces :) at the end of each sentence just to avoid a knee-jerk emotional reaction.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), March 02, 2000.

I've always liked portraits where a few high-key elements loom up out of large expanses of gloom. The suggested croppings destroy that and would make this image much more conventional.

Edward, this is a nice idea, but John K knows what he's talking about. The image doesn't suck, but it doesn't work either. If you're going to arrange bright white patches on a dark background you have to do something with them and not just rely on the tonality to generate interest.

The chair back totally overwhelms the image. That would be alright if it were part of a strong overall composition, but it isn't. The shape could be used to lead the eye round and back to Roese's face, but it doesn't connect with any of the other elements so the eye is just stopped dead in it's tracks. When I first saw it I couldn't figure out what it was (a vacuum cleaner?), so it drew my attention even more.

If this were a negative you could burn in the chair and hand, leaving Roese's face suspended in a nicely dramatic way, but it's in the wrong part of the frame so you need something where the chair is. In any case, her slightly vacant expression won't sustain interest beyond the superficial - bone structure or no. Her expression is better in the second pic, but I prefer the darker shadows of the first and in both images the casual look jars badly with the drama of your presentation.

I would second the recommendation to study and copy those who know how to handle dramatic lighting. They don't have to be the usual international big names. I find Bahman Farzad's lotus flower images inspirational in terms of composition (see the photo.net nature images forum or photocritique.net) and you could learn a lot about graphic form from the rest of his pictures (www.spotmetering.com). For something more directly similar to what you've attempted, try:

http://hem.fyristorg.com/pbackman/binde/binde1.htm

Although I'm not convinced by his "Tis flying in the face o' nature" pics, Binde is certainly someone who knows how to use black, so take a peek at his other stuff:

http://hem.fyristorg.com/pbackman/binde/tumgb.htm

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), March 02, 2000.

Thank you for your followup messages everyone. They mean a lot to me in terms of discernment and understanding. Using those messages as a means to understand previous comments is enlightening.

Also, thank you for every single one of the images you have provided as a way to look at what people think are really good examples of good black and white available light photography. I have been studying these and seek to replicate the results using much better equipment for the job (i.e. my eos300 and tmax400cn) John, your comment about, "I would not have taken the time to find the image if I did not think it applied" really made me think about what a heel I was about that part of your post.

I think in some ways, I have to apologize for not being as open-minded as one should be when posting an image for critique.

At once I feel stronger and wiser for having been subjected to the honesty of peoples' comments. It wasn't until the later posts that I could understand peoples' motives.

Once again, I appreciate all the feedback that you have given me, positive and negative about the photograph.

-- Edward Kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), March 03, 2000.

Well maybe we're not all wasting our time here after all. Could it be we've raised the quality of life for all by addressing the needs of the individual? (I'm only about 3% socialist, and this is my 3% worth, now I have to be exclusive, self absorbed and make some money, yeeeeehaaaawwww!)... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), March 03, 2000.

I just checked out your site - since you posted the address in Christel's thread. You have some great casual shots of amateur models. Have you done any more with large format?

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), December 04, 2000.

And I almost forgot - the Brad and Missy series are terrific - especially the first two.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@Mindspring.com), December 04, 2000.

I just came across this shot in a photographer's portfolio work. A decent example of what you were originally trying for? Hard light on the subjects face, tapering off in other areas (some vignetting during printing perhaps?), extremely strong composition, lots of complex shadow texture in the clothes and the wall area.

http://www.fashionimage.com/veronika13.html

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), March 01, 2001.

For what it's worth i really like the second image, the first one is too dark and does not really go with her facial expression. I think it's a really nice image and wish you could make another print of it. I would not listen to the detractors and just go ahead and make a series of images like this and see where it leads you.

I hardly think the garbage lighting ratios are the way you should head towards. Keep it simple and I personally would like to see the rest of the images since some of them have been removed.

I'd be happy tor receive it via email if you would rather not repost them.

-- Altaf Shaikh (al@nyc.rr.com), March 06, 2001.