Hi Igor Rybnikov ! I noticed you placed this image under the "Requests for critical opinions", so here are my "two cents". I think presence of the one main subject is not mandatory in landscape and urban photography as soon as there is a number of the secondary subjects to concentrate upon. I have had hard time trying to understand: what story this picture is about? I guess if the walking people on the first plan were drawn sharper and somehow emphasized, they could have become eye anchors but currently my eyes just keep scanning the picture from side to side without stopping on something important (no offence is meant). There are also several patterns that could have become leading lines: palm trees, columns of the buildings and white and brown circles on the ground but neither of them is bold enough to catch the eye as well. You use a very narrow aperture to achieve maximum depth of field - I assume but shooting from the bus it can actually reduce sharpness of the picture due to the shakes and bus movement if the exposure is not fast enough. A secondary effect of using this small aperture is that all the objects on the picture appear almost equally detailed and therefore none is emphasized. This is just my friendly comment :)
Michael Mossiagin Thank you very much for your detailed analysis of the photo. I completely agree with your judgement though would like to explain some moments. I think that subconsciously I wanted to show the modern architecture of Tel Aviv. I shot that pic while the bus was standing (so f/10 is acceptable) and I waited for the people to approach the center of the frame to make it more vivid. But you are right - there is no story!
I'm sure Igor Rybnikov, in your mind there was a story and the picture was quite different. I am going through some street photos now I took recently with my portable Lumix camera. Before I had a feeling that there is plenty of descent material there, even though shot on the run but now I clearly see that most of the pictures are not to my liking at all. The camera's wide angle sees things very different from my eyes did. This is something - though - we can get used to and learn, so the important thing is still to see the picture mentally and this is what you did! Once that's achieved, everything else is a technicality.
Hi Igor Rybnikov ! I noticed you placed this image under the "Requests for critical opinions", so here are my "two cents". I think presence of the one main subject is not mandatory in landscape and urban photography as soon as there is a number of the secondary subjects to concentrate upon. I have had hard time trying to understand: what story this picture is about? I guess if the walking people on the first plan were drawn sharper and somehow emphasized, they could have become eye anchors but currently my eyes just keep scanning the picture from side to side without stopping on something important (no offence is meant). There are also several patterns that could have become leading lines: palm trees, columns of the buildings and white and brown circles on the ground but neither of them is bold enough to catch the eye as well.
ReplyDeleteYou use a very narrow aperture to achieve maximum depth of field - I assume but shooting from the bus it can actually reduce sharpness of the picture due to the shakes and bus movement if the exposure is not fast enough. A secondary effect of using this small aperture is that all the objects on the picture appear almost equally detailed and therefore none is emphasized. This is just my friendly comment :)
Michael Mossiagin Thank you very much for your detailed analysis of the photo. I completely agree with your judgement though would like to explain some moments. I think that subconsciously I wanted to show the modern architecture of Tel Aviv. I shot that pic while the bus was standing (so f/10 is acceptable) and I waited for the people to approach the center of the frame to make it more vivid. But you are right - there is no story!
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Igor Rybnikov, in your mind there was a story and the picture was quite different. I am going through some street photos now I took recently with my portable Lumix camera. Before I had a feeling that there is plenty of descent material there, even though shot on the run but now I clearly see that most of the pictures are not to my liking at all. The camera's wide angle sees things very different from my eyes did. This is something - though - we can get used to and learn, so the important thing is still to see the picture mentally and this is what you did! Once that's achieved, everything else is a technicality.
ReplyDeleteMichael Mossiagin I can't but agree with you. Thank you, Michael, for spending your time on reviewing my (and others) photos and giving useful advice!
ReplyDeleteIt is my pleasure. Thanks for participating.
ReplyDelete