Critique Washington Subway

[Pavel M]

Shot with a Rokinon fisheye on an Olympus EM-1 Mk1 camera, hand-held. Processed in Photoshop. This is my first "Critique" submission on this forum. I am curious how it works. Please be as blunt and specific about the image as you please, but keep it civil when it comes to the maker.

https://flic.kr/p/2kVnSrj

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pavel_photophile2008/51143512444/in/dateposted/

 

[sirch]

Well composed with a great range of tones and I like the train rushing by underneath. I suppose if I was being really nit-picking for me there is a bit too much movement in the furthest right figure but that is hardly noticeable. It looks nice and sharp for those conditions and I guess IBIS helped with that.

How feedback works on here is people just make comments, it is pretty much always positive and polite. A lot of people don't give feedback some only positive feedback on things they like so there is often an element of reading between the lines to guess at what people don't like.

 

[Pavel M]

Well composed with a great range of tones and I like the train rushing by underneath. I suppose if I was being really nit-picking for me there is a bit too much movement in the furthest right figure but that is hardly noticeable. It looks nice and sharp for those conditions and I guess IBIS helped with that.

How feedback works on here is people just make comments, it is pretty much always positive and polite. A lot of people don't give feedback some only positive feedback on things they like so there is often an element of reading between the lines to guess at what people don't like.

Thank you, Sirch. I actually prefer a mix that includes both +tive and -tive comments. I think about them all and then I either accept them or not. It is the stimulation of my thought that I find valuable, regardless of whether or not I act on the advice I get. In this case, I could have easily removed the figure on the right, but I actually often like the blur of motion in otherwise sharp image. In this case, the image would be (to my eyes) a bit too static. The figures make the image come to be more of a live place and i like that. That does not make your view wrong of course-it just means that we value slightly different things in our images.

Thank you for your comment. I appreciate that you took time and I also appreciate that you clued me in on the culture of commenting here. I hope that over time, I find a group of people that will be more comfortable being blunt with me about what they do not like about my work.

 

[sirch]

As far as I am concerned it is a good photo so it's a bit of a stretch to be blunt or offer much in the way of feedback. I'll tag a few people who often offer comments to see if we get any other opinions
@ancient_mariner @TheBigYin @Wayne Els @THIRTYFIVEMILL @Graham

 

[ancient_mariner]

As far as I am concerned it is a good photo so it's a bit of a stretch to be blunt or offer much in the way of feedback. I'll tag a few people who often offer comments to see if we get any other opinions
@ancient_mariner @TheBigYin @Wayne Els @THIRTYFIVEMILL @Graham

I'll take a look when I m on a computer instead of a phone.

 

[Harlequin565]

I tend not to read previous comments to avoid bias... So apologies if you receive multiple comments of the same type! For me, it's an image about lines and shapes. The people in it don't really add anything - especially considering the motion blur. I think it has a lovely range of tones though the B&W "spectrum". Less (no) people IMO, but that's just one more opinion.

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

I like the image, both its composition and processing. It works well for me. Like Ian, I'd prefer probably prefer it without the people. The multiple light source effects are very pleasing.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Nice use of sweeping curves and straight lines, of still and moving, of contrasting geometric shapes topped off with good composition and light than moves nicely through the image. Conversion well done in a clean street style.

What doesn't work for me? The figures aren't smoothly blurred in the way the train is, and the distant stuff at the focal point of the image is fussy & out of keeping with the rest of it. Both these are somewhat beyond your control if you wanted people and this angle & sweep.

 

[Mikesphotaes]

Leads the eye into the centre of the image.

Not much going on apart from that!

 

[cargo]

HI

I like to see movement in an image although I have not done much photography in that manner. Your image is making me want to try.


Nearly missed the train there and wish I could see more.


Liking the ceilings graduated light sweeping over the top I also like to see the movement in the figures personally I would have been tempted to clone the middle person out but that's not really an issue.

Gaz

 

[Pavel M]

HI

I like to see movement in an image although I have not done much photography in that manner. Your image is making me want to try.


Nearly missed the train there and wish I could see more.


Liking the ceilings graduated light sweeping over the top I also like to see the movement in the figures personally I would have been tempted to clone the middle person out but that's not really an issue.

Gaz

Thank you,Gaz for your kind comments. I am shy about taking photos of people, as I hate to have my picture taken. Also, I feel better if people in my photos are not recognizable. Most of my photos of people are therefore shot at slow shutter speed. But in truth I find my ghosts more interesting than humans frozen in motion.

Yes,in truth I waited for the train in motion, but it did not add much.

lighting and arches attracted me to the photo and using a fisheye complements that

 

[TheBigYin]

Hi Pavel - thought i'd better weigh in with my opinion as i'd been summoned

In all honesty, this is a interesting photo to me because I can read it two ways...

The first thing that sprang to mind, probably because it'd have been how i'd approached it, is that it's got the potential to be a brilliant architectural shot - the actual build is fascinating, with levels, curves textures and sweeps that are a joy for the eye to wander around. Unfortunately, as an architectural shot it falls down in a couple of minor areas IMO. First thing that struck me was that it's on a tilt. From the horizontal "seam" in the concrete of the back wall, the camera is annoyingly just shy of being level - it's not far enough to be a "statement" but far enough to be reasonably obvious. Secondly, as a purely architectural it definitely needs to lose the people. This shot is just crying out for being shot on a large format film camera, ideally from around 3 feet higher than normal eye level (which this appears to have been shot at) so that you see "over" the LHS wall and balustrade a little more and perhaps past the first curve of the wall to see the foot of the second black cabin in the middle of the court. And of course, being shot on film, you could have stuck a slow ISO film in there, stopped the lens on the camera way down past f64 and got an exposure time slow enough to completely lose any people in the shot. Of course, that's far from a "grab shot", and would probably require permits to shoot, involving tripods, step-ladders etc. so highly unlikely to ever happen unless commisioned by the station owners.

Alternatively though, another way of reading this image is as more of a "street" kind of shot - at which point the whole image has a second, and perhaps more successful life. I love the blur of the train - and the lesser blur of the people in the mid-ground - which speaks to me of the different pace of movement between the human scale and machine. The two other figures to the rear are sadly a little less successful, primarily as they are more static. I still think it'd have been slightly better from a more elevated point of shooting however - while it's not the most discrete way of shooting, with a modern camera with live display on the rear, it shouldn't be that much of a problem to gain maybe a couple of feet more elevation, IMO worth looking a bit of a dork standing there with your camera over your head for a couple of seconds...

On the whole though, you've done something that's unusual for me - you've made me prefer a photo that's about people to a photo that's about a building or landscape - i'm not a people person when it comes down to photography frankly - but for me, the second interpretation of the shot is much more powerful and valid.

Just wish it wasn't on the wonk.

 

[Pavel M]

I tend not to read previous comments to avoid bias... So apologies if you receive multiple comments of the same type! For me, it's an image about lines and shapes. The people in it don't really add anything - especially considering the motion blur. I think it has a lovely range of tones though the B&W "spectrum". Less (no) people IMO, but that's just one more opinion.

Thank you. I will respond to your thoughtful comment as a part of my response to @TheBigYin.

 

[Pavel M]

Nice use of sweeping curves and straight lines, of still and moving, of contrasting geometric shapes topped off with good composition and light than moves nicely through the image. Conversion well done in a clean street style.

What doesn't work for me? The figures aren't smoothly blurred in the way the train is, and the distant stuff at the focal point of the image is fussy & out of keeping with the rest of it. Both these are somewhat beyond your control if you wanted people and this angle & sweep.

@ancient_mariner, Thank you, you get what i was after. Primarily the curves in the foreground and the interesting lighting. The moving train was also supposed to add, but in fact it contributes little in my eyes. As to the figures, I could have applied motion blur to them ( a bit of a fiddle), but in a straight shot, the people move slower than the train, so blurring is less. Perhaps something to work on. You are right that the background is fuzzy (I assume that is what you meant by fussy/). I used a fisheye with all the DOF to keep the photo still hand-holdable, but my focus was on the curve in the foreground. I could have tried focus-stacking (my camera allows that hand-held), but I did not think of it and I did not expect to need it. Thanks for great comments. I may apply a bit of motion blur to the people.

 

[Pavel M]

Hi Pavel - thought i'd better weigh in with my opinion as i'd been summoned

In all honesty, this is a interesting photo to me because I can read it two ways...

The first thing that sprang to mind, probably because it'd have been how i'd approached it, is that it's got the potential to be a brilliant architectural shot - the actual build is fascinating, with levels, curves textures and sweeps that are a joy for the eye to wander around. Unfortunately, as an architectural shot it falls down in a couple of minor areas IMO. First thing that struck me was that it's on a tilt. From the horizontal "seam" in the concrete of the back wall, the camera is annoyingly just shy of being level - it's not far enough to be a "statement" but far enough to be reasonably obvious. Secondly, as a purely architectural it definitely needs to lose the people. This shot is just crying out for being shot on a large format film camera, ideally from around 3 feet higher than normal eye level (which this appears to have been shot at) so that you see "over" the LHS wall and balustrade a little more and perhaps past the first curve of the wall to see the foot of the second black cabin in the middle of the court. And of course, being shot on film, you could have stuck a slow ISO film in there, stopped the lens on the camera way down past f64 and got an exposure time slow enough to completely lose any people in the shot. Of course, that's far from a "grab shot", and would probably require permits to shoot, involving tripods, step-ladders etc. so highly unlikely to ever happen unless commisioned by the station owners.

Alternatively though, another way of reading this image is as more of a "street" kind of shot - at which point the whole image has a second, and perhaps more successful life. I love the blur of the train - and the lesser blur of the people in the mid-ground - which speaks to me of the different pace of movement between the human scale and machine. The two other figures to the rear are sadly a little less successful, primarily as they are more static. I still think it'd have been slightly better from a more elevated point of shooting however - while it's not the most discrete way of shooting, with a modern camera with live display on the rear, it shouldn't be that much of a problem to gain maybe a couple of feet more elevation, IMO worth looking a bit of a dork standing there with your camera over your head for a couple of seconds...

On the whole though, you've done something that's unusual for me - you've made me prefer a photo that's about people to a photo that's about a building or landscape - i'm not a people person when it comes down to photography frankly - but for me, the second interpretation of the shot is much more powerful and valid.

Just wish it wasn't on the wonk.

@TheBigYin, thank you very much for very detailed and very thoughtful comments. This is the kind of caliber of comments that make me think and thus they are very valuable to me, even if after some thought I may not fully agree with you. But the discussion of where we agree and where we disagree is probably the best part of receiving such thoughtful comments.

1) Counterclockwise tilt. I agree that using the seam that you mentioned would have been better than the shorter vertical that I used for the correction. The image does have a feel of counterclockwise tilt, but fisheye images have so much barrel distortion in them that they are habitually difficult to find the good way to avoid tilts and so I assumed that that was the situation. I need to fix this

2) People. The reviewers are almost (or entirely?) unanimous saying that the people must go. It is very interesting to me - I strongly disagree for 2 reasons.
a) Public places are visually defined by people in them and they are given a sense of scale. Without people in architectural photos, many images look sterile and dehumanized. No wonder real estate computer generated images always include computer generated images of people in them.
b) Architecture photos are tricky in that photographers are taking images of other people's artistic (or not so artistic) accomplishments. In a way it is like taking a technically superb photo of a photograph in a gallery. Architecture images need not be a pure translation of other people's work from 3-dimensional to dimensional. However an artists (as opposed to a documentary photographers) must make sure that they contribute enough of themselves into the image so that it is (at least in part) their artwork. Including people and especially people in motion contributes towards making the image their own. For these two reasons, I invariably seek out having people in the photos. I could have kept the exposure longer (arguably possible without a tripod) or simply to clone out the people (easy). I did not do either. I should probably work on the people to make them more interesting and I will probably try that.

3) In your recommendation, you suggest a different composition. My image was shot with an extreme ultra-wide and a fisheye to gain extreme magnification of the foreground curves. That is where my focus is and that is what my INTENT was. You replace my intent with yours and that is an alternative but IT IS NOT WHAT I WANTED TO SHOW in this photo. I consider identifying intent (or plausible intent) as a key to appreciation of the photos. No doubt that what you would have photographed would have produced a very good photo, but it is not what I tried to capture. I am often the Dork standing with the camera above my head or at my ankles, so that would have been the least of my concerns.

4) You are in favour of categorizing images according to "architecture" and "street" and adjusting the photos to fit the category. As a judge of competitions for many years for photo clubs in my area, I had to do it, at least to a degree, as the clubs often had precise definition of what belongs to one category or another. However as an artist I feel free of all that and I just want to create images that reflect what captures my imagination, thoughts, believes, sense of humour and aesthetics etc. I do not have to fit into categories and I never give them a thought. Most artist's work does not fit neatly into any box and I hate to be constrained by boxes.

So, @TheBigYin, there are areas where we agree and areas where we do not. Do not see that as my critique of your critique, but rather as an opportunity for further discussion, if you wish. I do respect your opinions.

 

[Harlequin565]

You replace my intent with yours and that is an alternative but IT IS NOT WHAT I WANTED TO SHOW in this photo

So I didn't like the people in the photo. I absolutely did not get your intent. After reading your reply, I appreciate now what you were trying to achieve. I think it's absolutely vitally important for a photographer seeking feedback to state what their intent was - after all, there is nothing worse than spending time writing a piece of feedback only to have someone say "well that wasn't my intent." (Not speaking for Mark here, but I am speaking for myself). And to be clear, almost all the photos put up here on TP have little/no information about them - it's not just this image!

When it comes to feedback, especially written feedback, it takes quite a while for people to formulate their opinions and then take the time to write it down. The more information you give about what it is you're trying to do, the more likely you are to get someone to give you feedback that will actually be helpful instead of being (effectively) a waste of time because you intended the opposite. It's one of the key reasons I've stopped giving feedback on many images.

If you feel that people do have a sense of place in this image, then perhaps stating that up front might have been helpful, along with a bit more information about your vision. I see a good deal of photographs with people in them, and out of all of them the vast majority either have their backs to the camera, or they're on their phones. The sense of scale feels a bit lost to me with the ultra-wide angle too. At a distance, all people seem tiny with a UWA. As I said above, I think it's about lines and curves. Now if there was a person walking towards the camera and being a bit closer and prominent, that might have been completely different.

I guess the question is: If the reaction shows that people didn't understand your intent - who needs to up their game? Is it those giving feedback who need more education on "artistic intent", or is it the photographer who needs to be more clear about what they're trying to present?

Also, using CAPS is generally seen as "shouting" in forum etiquette, so probably worth using sparingly (if at all) to make a point.

 

[ancient_mariner]

You are right that the background is fuzzy (I assume that is what you meant by fussy/).

By fussy I meant crowded and not fitting with the rest of the image.

 

[Pavel M]

So I didn't like the people in the photo. I absolutely did not get your intent. After reading your reply, I appreciate now what you were trying to achieve. I think it's absolutely vitally important for a photographer seeking feedback to state what their intent was - after all, there is nothing worse than spending time writing a piece of feedback only to have someone say "well that wasn't my intent." (Not speaking for Mark here, but I am speaking for myself). And to be clear, almost all the photos put up here on TP have little/no information about them - it's not just this image!

When it comes to feedback, especially written feedback, it takes quite a while for people to formulate their opinions and then take the time to write it down. The more information you give about what it is you're trying to do, the more likely you are to get someone to give you feedback that will actually be helpful instead of being (effectively) a waste of time because you intended the opposite. It's one of the key reasons I've stopped giving feedback on many images.

If you feel that people do have a sense of place in this image, then perhaps stating that up front might have been helpful, along with a bit more information about your vision. I see a good deal of photographs with people in them, and out of all of them the vast majority either have their backs to the camera, or they're on their phones. The sense of scale feels a bit lost to me with the ultra-wide angle too. At a distance, all people seem tiny with a UWA. As I said above, I think it's about lines and curves. Now if there was a person walking towards the camera and being a bit closer and prominent, that might have been completely different.

I guess the question is: If the reaction shows that people didn't understand your intent - who needs to up their game? Is it those giving feedback who need more education on "artistic intent", or is it the photographer who needs to be more clear about what they're trying to present?

Also, using CAPS is generally seen as "shouting" in forum etiquette, so probably worth using sparingly (if at all) to make a point.

Thank you, Ian. I am new to forums. I mostly live on Flickr. Capitalization or bold simply meant to me that I wanted to make sure that the key part is understood. There was no ground for me to shout and in my mind I did not shout at Mark. I will not use caps or bold in the future or this or other forums, now knowing how it is interpreted.

You and I look at the reviews differently. For example, in my review, identification of a "plausible intent" is always one of the first things I do in my reviews. I do the same thing when I am visiting galleries as a viewer. Of course I do not know the actual intent, because only the artist knows that. However I try to provide my comments in the context of the plausible intent. You and I agree that It is frustrating both for the reviewer and the artist when the reviewer replaces artist's intent with reviewer's own.

Should an artist provide more information about the intent? I am torn on this issue. I agree with you that it could make it easier for the reviewer to write a feedback and there is a good chance that the feedback would be more relevant to the artist's work. On the other hand, I learned a great deal about photography precisely by trying to understand the intent of the artists. Many sources I examined when learning to provide reviews do recommend an effort to identify a plausible intent of the artwork as one of the early steps in conducting a review. When a reviewer understands and states the intent that matches that of the artist, it is usually very rewarding for both and a stronger connection is made.

My work has been displayed in numerous international juried shows where juror(s) were gallery owners, curators, professional artists and art professors. Some of my images were picked out of thousands submitted. I have been accepted as a member in a Manhattan art gallery and I also judged club competitions in my area for years. I am not expecting the reviewer to be somebody that looks down upon my work from the clouds and tells me what is wrong, but rather as a discussion among peers of pros and cons of different approaches to a given situation. Often there is no right or wrong. The learning comes from discussions and understanding a range opinions of other serious photographers. It gives an opportunity for all (see I almost capitalized "all", but I restrained myself) to learn something and gain better understanding.

You say:
I guess the question is: If the reaction shows that people didn't understand your intent - who needs to up their game? Is it those giving feedback who need more education on "artistic intent", or is it the photographer who needs to be more clear about what they're trying to present? You see, this sounds almost accusatory to me and looking for a culprit, for person reponsible for a problem. I am looking more for an exchange of views. Let us not talk to each other like that

 

[Pavel M]

By fussy I meant crowded and not fitting with the rest of the image.

What would you recommend to do, Ian? Remove the people at the back? Something more drastic? I am not sure that my technical skills can handle a major surgery in that area.

 

[Harlequin565]

You see, this sounds almost accusatory to me and looking for a culprit. Let us not talk to each other like that

A genuine and reasoned response Pavel - thanks. I think it's probably a case of agreeing to disagree. And in response to the above, it was actually a genuine question and not intended to be accusatory. If I remove the personal from it and rephrase... "If a photo does not stand on its own to be interpreted. Why is that? Is it the fault of the photographer or the viewer (or a combination thereof)" I'm not looking for a culprit - just an understanding. Or is it simply a case of that it's OK for photo to be interpreted differently to how the artist intended.

 

[Pavel M]

Ian, thanks. A great reply. You pose an interesting question: Is it "OK for photo to be interpreted differently to how the artist intended" I would say it is OK to come up with your own interpretation of an artwork. Many abstracts are not named by artist precisely to give the active viewers an opportunity to project something from themselves onto the artwork and make it "their own". At the same time I think that when you review an artwork, it is a good thing to make an effort to understand what the artist may have been thinking of when creating the work. You may not always succeed but with practice you get much better at it. I can tell you that the reviewers I value the most on Flickr are those that made the effort and understood my work here is an example of some superb comments on one of my work:

https://flic.kr/p/pYiSZF

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pavel_photophile2008/15733417889/in/album-72157715782080717/

 

[ancient_mariner]

What would you recommend to do, Ian? Remove the people at the back? Something more drastic? I am not sure that my technical skills can handle a major surgery in that area.

The scene is what it is, and there's nothing that can be done white retaining the integrity of the photograph. It is an observation and a wish for a cleaner area in the distance, rather than a criticism of the image itself.

 

[gramps]

I have come back to this image several times, which I suppose is a good sign as it has peaked my interest as someone who is looking for inspiration for such images.
I like the tones and the lines, the curve of the walkway contrasted with the geometric shapes is appealing.
I hadn't initially noticed the train speeding through but when I did it added a new dimension, the hustle, bustle of a station is shown by the movement in the people close by.
All in all I like it and it has given me something to think about ... I am not sure what the following adds

My work has been displayed in numerous international juried shows where juror(s) were gallery owners, curators, professional artists and art professors. Some of my images were picked out of thousands submitted. I have been accepted as a member in a Manhattan art gallery and I also judged club competitions in my area for years. I am not expecting the reviewer to be somebody that looks down upon my work from the clouds and tells me what is wrong,

 

[Pavel M]

I have come back to this image several times, which I suppose is a good sign as it has peaked my interest as someone who is looking for inspiration for such images.
I like the tones and the lines, the curve of the walkway contrasted with the geometric shapes is appealing.
I hadn't initially noticed the train speeding through but when I did it added a new dimension, the hustle, bustle of a station is shown by the movement in the people close by.
All in all I like it and it has given me something to think about ... I am not sure what the following adds

@gramps,
Thank you for your very kind comments. It is always useful to the maker to understand the thoughts the work elicited in the viewer and your comments provide that.

Your quote is a part of the argument (which you did not quote) that explains why I submitted the image for critique and what do I expect from it.

 

[CavGez]

I really like the variety of geometric shapes and contrast the sweeping curves, which contrast the train blur. I like also the contrast between smooth concrete and metal balustrade.
I did miss the train originally, perhaps the contrast could be increased or the whiter side of the train lightened. The shadow cast on it from the walkway gives it a permanence rather than the brief flash of movement that it actually is.
The eye is swept towards the square box in the centre, which has some distractions on the side of it. I understand the comments on both sides about the people in the image, I think it works with both. The blurring is slightly ghosted rather than uniform, which is a bit more uncomfortable to look at, as it is.
I've read the comments, which will bias these comments slightly, but I'll and try and offer something different: The first viewing had a mystery to it, which receded as I read the comments and title. Perhaps the title could add some more to the image and intent.
Lovely image, thanks for sharing.

 

[Pavel M]

The shadow cast on it from the walkway gives it a permanence rather than the brief flash of movement that it actually is.
The eye is swept towards the square box in the centre, which has some distractions on the side of it.

I agree with both. The box is fairly hard to remove though, although it could be done and I may do it if I print and/or submit to a show.

The blurring is slightly ghosted rather than uniform, which is a bit more uncomfortable to look at, as it is.

I do not disagree. I just do not know what you mean by that. It is a straight shot and all around is sharp, so there is no appreciable camera movement. All movement is human movement. Are both ghosted?

Perhaps the title could add some more to the image and intent.

Would something like "Underground Curves" work for you?

 

[CavGez]

Just to clarify some of my thoughts, I was referring to the blemishes on the side of the box /ticket machine/vending machine rather than the whole thing, and yes I would be tricky to remove the whole thing, not impossible though. I actually thought of it as another geometric shape, to add to the mix.

The 'ghosting' term is something I've made up of sorts....I'll try and explain what I meant. The image is sharp and the people are blurred. Rather than a continuous smooth blur, there happens to be a double-image occurring - this is where the pedestrian has slowed down sightly and naturally as they walk through the exposure time. I've called this a ghosted image. So rather than 'one blurred person' the result, quite naturally, is two images of a person very close together. I've called this the ghosted image. The ghost could be blurred into the other in PP, if desired. So my comment was: I felt a continuous blur of a person was slightly more comfortable to look at compared to a ghosted image. (I've thought about my preferences quite a bit in my 'movement' series)

Yes, Underground Curves sounds fantastic . I like this image, have enjoyed this.