How do I improve the composition? I know the guy walking pass had his face turned the other way. That kindda ruined it.

Would it be better if it was just a shot of the wallpaper?

WallPaper

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002

Answers

Another sleepless night for me.......The man in the picture makes the shot interesting....why? Because we as the viewers want to see what he is looking at. So his head turned is good. And it doesn't matter to me what his face looks like as the image is really focused on the wall paper.

It could have been improved in two ways: 1. Shot in colour......not possible...hence...2. Waited till he moved forward a but more so his head could stand out more against the lighter background.

Otherwise, well done. :)

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Trash it. Good idea but a near miss. Next time pay attention to what's in the viewfinder, don't just point and click and hope you got something.

-- wilhelmn (Wmitch@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Another vote for 'near miss.' The guy's entire head gets lost in the dark poster behind him. Making the exposure a second earlier probably would have resulted in a better photo. I do like the textures and content of the wall.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 01, 2002.

I am gonna have to stick up for Travis on this one.

Wil, I think what you haven't noticed is that Trvis is looking for patterns and communicates this very well in his B&W photography. The various pictures on the wall make this interesting and the person adds life to the image.

The more I look at it the more I like it.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

I still believe that this picture is more successful than a "near miss". Sure it could've been improved, but to discard the picture because of a slight mistake, like pressing the shutter button too early? I think you guys are being a bit harsh.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Thx guys, especially Kristian..

I do belief I snapped too early. But u can see it this way, The man walking was HEADLESS...creepy...;)

good effort, I should have waited for a dog to run across the wall instead.

will try again..;)

regards

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

I wouldn't say to discard it, but to keep it as a "rough sketch" of a concept that you can explore further.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 01, 2002.

Good point Mike, I was thinking the same..good concept but can be varied and improved.. like this?

Noon Stroll

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Hey Travis, no need to be "especially" thanking me, just because I like your picture. Mike, for example is a first-class photographer himself and his opinion should be "expecially" valued.

Just because my comments are praising doesn't mean I am doing you any good. A differnce of opinion and advice will open your mind, and my comments alone won't. And don' get too comfortable, because I am bound not to like everything you shoot....or you could try to prove me wrong!!! :)

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

ok Kristian, point taken..I do need impartial critiques all round here..its what im here for. To learn from u guys.

Mike,knowing your work, I'd appreciate your future comments all round.

regards guys..;) just hope posting too much isnt a nuisance to some..;))

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Love "noon stroll". I think that it could've been improved (though maybe not possible) if the post was also included in the frame. Therfor there would be two objects with two shadows. But I guess the poll isn't that important and would've probably been distracting.....so forget what I just said!!

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

What is a Leica M3 ddd? Whereas the many earlier pictures posted are merely adequately composed but ordinary pictures of pretty scenes, while this one is almost a truly interesting picture. It fails, only by a fraction of a second, and Mr. Koh indicates by the questions in his post that he is aware of that failure, and the reasons for it. I still say trash it, and do better next time, which you are clearly capable of doing.

-- Wilhelmn (wmitch3400@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Wil

"Trash it"?????

Will there be a next time? What makes this shot successful is that Travis pulled the trigger, and maybe early, but he got the shot! Sure some may say it's a mistake, but I say bad luck on timing.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Kristian, I cropped the post! ;)

Wil, tough luck one me, but if that man had walked past the wall without turning his head ever, what should i have done? dun pull the trigger??;)

but i do agree the head was crucial...really..it should have been placed against the white background...but sigh, such is life..

M3 ddd?? i dunno...its an M3 alright..

-- travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Sure some may say it's a mistake, but I say bad luck on timing.

If a dead bird had fallen right in front of the lens when he clicked the shutter and spoiled the shot, it would have been bad luck. The man being in the wrong place is imperfect timing (his movement through the scene was probably quite predictable).

One of the reasons I prefer to shoot with an M is that it has very little lag time between pressing the shutter button and making the exposure (about 1/50 sec. rather than 1/8 sec. or more with SLRs). With a dynamic subject, I can get exactly the right expression or position within the frame much more easily (and frequently) using an M than an SLR. It's a strength of the system that should be ruthlessly exploited.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 01, 2002.

Mike...

Here we go......"his movement through the scene was probably quite predictable"

How could you tell he was even going to look at the wall?

Sorry, but I don't think so. And the chances of a "dead bird falling in front of the camera" and the "colour of the guys hair being the same colour (or similar contrast) to the section on the wall behind his head" would be close. Neither "quite predictable"

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Kristian:

I'm w/Mike Dixon re: the timing on this shot (my motto is "90% of life is timing"). Regardless of whether the man was looking @ the wall, the pic would have been much better if Mr. Koh had waited long enough for him to walk approx. another 6 feet (2m?) so that he was in front of a lighter portion of the wall. Nothing wrong w/taking another shot. Also, the "colour of the guys hair being the same colour (or similar contrast) to the section on the wall behind his head" *is* very predictable once you're used to seeing in B&W.

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), April 01, 2002.

Too much sky, not enough ground. I think you should have thought to stoop down and cut some of the air from above, while including the guy's feet. That's not a matter of the right timing, but the right preparation. The picture would have been much the same, but without the uncomfortable feeling that the bottom was chopped off.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Michael, quite right. I should have stooped down and included the whole ground.

Nice thought.

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

As DC Chris alluded to, my "predictability" comment was about the man's position against the background, not where he was looking.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 01, 2002.

ok I give in Mike and Travis :)

Can't I always be right?

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Hi, Travis:

My 2 cents: I think that your two shots belong in the same category where timing either make or destroy the photo, with only so so possibilities left in between.

The Wall Paper has been already discussed in detail and I think (same as Chris)that it is just a few steps away from being a great shot.

For The Noon Stroll IMHO you just HAD to wait until the man had passed beyond the point where the imaginary extension of the shadow of the lamp post meets the ground. In my spontaneous feeling of the composition the triangular shape on top of the photo makes this additional consideration a must. Hard for me to explain exactly why. In fact I'd try to explain it with a photo if I could but . . .

Regards, Travis. Thanks for sharing.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), April 01, 2002.

Always willing Ivan..

But looking at some other comments, I now have second thoughts about posting..

Urself, Kristian, roger Michel and MD are some of the real likable people to ask for genuine honest advise. I thank u all.

As for some others, they know who they r, they just can't accept BORING PICS by their standards.

I wondered why? There is no such thing as an interesting photograph in my opinion, every photo has a life. Obviously more than some people here..

Nice day, Ivan..;)

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.