A few weeks ago there was a very interesting discussion http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=35359

In response, I am posting a "contact sheet" of scans shot at summer solstice. I have just scanned the images and am posting them without taking great time to consider them myself. I have not yet selected any "keepers" though will do so in a moment. I hope later to compare my selection with any that you choose to make. From what I have seen, I don't expect this number to be high.

These are "raw" scans - not so much as a levels command done and I present them in this form to allow criticism and advice on EVERY aspect so far in the process. They are shot on Neopan 400 stand developed for 2 hours (ISO 3200 for approximation). The camera is german and the lens is a Voigtlander 35mm 2.5. My normal darkroom was unavailable and unfortunately, they show signs of fogging in some localised areas as I was unable to black out the loo very well!

I post this roll in part, becuase I don't think the photos are all that. I've clearly missed focus on a few and the second half seem under-exposed. Since I use an inccident meter, this is slightly odd and I'm wondering if the scanner settings were changed. I find shooting in crowds particularly difficult and am all ears with regard to advice. The first film was largely ruined due to camera shake - 1/8 isn't a problem with an RF - unless you have people walking into you!

Too many images, man - please post just two or three (preferably one) if you want any intelligent criticism.

Ed

Actually, I'm a woman though you would think I would get used to that on a photography forum what with it being such a male dominated activity, Annie Leibowitz, Lee Miller and Fay Goodwin are afterall so unheard of

Seriously though, I rather think you have missed the point of this post, which is in direct relation to the thread linked to earlier. The point of this is that it is a whole roll of film, unprocessed. The point is that the best photographs are not selected, the point of this is to look at one person and the way that they work. i quite understand that many will not have the time to look at 23 photos, even for a few seconds - that is fine!

Please understand that I can edit a selection down - and that I agree that there are far too many websites that look rather like what I've posted - a load of crap with a few decent pictures that are too much trouble to sift through - but what is the point of posting a picture I know is good? You going to tell me I'm great? Thanks, I know Equally, if I post something I see as second rate, you are going to tell me I'm rubbish - and I've still not learnt anything. It is for this reason that up until now, I've never posted work in the C&C section - I'm not a beginner who needs the validation of being told I'm good - and equally, I can spot a rubbish photo an bin it without second thought.

2 out of those 3 are dead and the last might as well be. (<- not a comment on women in photography. Just a pretty pointless comment on the examples provided.)

Anywho...

I like the very last one. It has some movement and the actual capture seems to have just enough detail. I kind of like that you can't really make out what she has but the other hoop in frame gives you a clue.

Which I presume is to find something redeemable from 23 blown out photos of the no-soap brigade



Not necessarily...



Not necessarily...

Please leave the submission as is- I want to look at the shots when I have time.

John

OK, I've looked through them. I understand your reasoning for this submission, but I find it difficult to critique, mainly because you haven't presented a finished product. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I feel like you're asking the viewers here to do the work for you. In other words, you haven't shown us your complete vision.

If you had gone through and adjusted each photo to your liking, then I think you could expect a more useful critique. For example, maybe the film developing or scanning has introduced a look that you don't like. Without PP, we can't know what you want us to see.

As things stand, I like #6, because the positioning of the ladies' heads against the lines of Stonehenge creates a pleasing balance to my eye. I also like the motion generated by their expressions.

I would really like to see a few of these (or all, if you have time) PP'd to your liking.

John

Charly, I agree with John to the extent that I'd like to see two or three finished shots so I can understand what you were working toward. What you're doing here is photojournalism. When someone doing photojournalism tried to join Magnum, HCB always wanted to look at his contact sheets instead of finished products so he could see if the applicant understood how to close in on the subject. There are always peripheral shots, but the idea was to identify the point of the shoot with one or two climactic shots -- climactic in the sense that they demonstrated the objective of the whole shebang. What I'm missing here is the progression from peripheral to central. In other words, I don't understand what the point of this series was. Without a focal point, this kind of series is more or less just banging away at random.

I re-read the topic referred to in the URL - mostly it seemed that people agreed with Russ - unfortunately Russ's critiques are often dismissive, contemptuous, uninformed or informed on an unrelated topic, and so on. So by and large I don't take his particular critiques seriously.

It's good that you mentioned the technical problems up front, so people don't have to waste time picking through those issues. I rather like the idea that I can view other people's photos that do have technical problems, because I can usually learn more from those than from the contest winners.

Very well said! I could have not said it so exactly at all!

Charly, I for myself wonder what is going on there. Looking at the series 3 times, I get the idea of an maybe medieval gig at stonehedge (yes Im aware there are some more of such stonecircles). First let me say, they all more or less dont hold too much interest for me. But then, what I like about all pictures, you seem to blend in, they take it as normal to be shot, and thats good obviously. That might be an odd obvservation for some, but I have seen enough shots where people look funny because of shooting, and thats not the case here. And apart from this I like some of the images where eyecontact exists. I get a feeling of what it must have been like being there.

Christian

I think I agree with Russ ... I feel like there's a climax that is missing ... like these are the rejects and we didn't get to see the selects.

There's a bit of a sense of anticipation and tension building up to 'something' ... but that 'something' is never revealed and that is what is ultimately unsatisfying for me.

Charly, I should have added that even though I don't consider the contact sheet finished work I'm happy to see someone post street shots on this forum. Good street is very difficult -- probably more difficult than any other variety of photography. I wish more posters would take a shot at it (to coin a phrase).

Actually a lot easier than landscape to shoot - don't need a tripod, don't need to worry about level horizon, lighting not critical, and extreme detail not critical. The problem is, shooting people has a risk of offending, and another risk of use without permission. It would be more interesting for this type of shooting to hear how the photographer got around those issues.

I hate to have to reply to one of Dale's posts, but it's important not to let misinformation like this go by. I won't comment on the technical misinformation since the errors there will be obvious to anyone at all familiar with street photography, but the "risk without permission" part needs comment. If you're going to do street photography you always need to determine what your country's laws are regarding expectation of and right of privacy, but in the United States, the laws are not what Dale's suggesting. For a summary of the general rights of photographers in the U.S., go to http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm. Krages, an attorney, has posted a single-page, PDF summary you can download, print, and carry with you.

Just to re-iterate what Russ said ...

In the United States, there is absolutely zero "risk of use without permission" for a photojournalist, an artist or an amateur.

Generally true, as long as you don't deliberately make a subject look ridiculous or misrepresent who the subject is. There's also a problem called "right of publicity" if the person is a celebrity. Also, you can't use likenesses of people in advertising or promotion without a model release. You need to check Krages or someone like him if you're in any doubt, and if the question is more complicated than the simple stuff in Krages' book or summary you need to consult an attorney.

First off, Russ is angry and jealous of landscape photographers, and expressing so on a landscape photography site. How sensible is that? And if taking photos of people and possibly posting them is risk-free or even relatively risk-free, why say all of this? And what need for model releases anyway?

I don't need model releases for landscapes, or to post them here. And none of those landscapes are going to be angry with me, or accuse me of doing something wrong.

Russ, grow up and stop the childish behavior, please.

For 'commercial' use. Advertising, stock libraries, etc.

Photographs taken for 'photojournalistic' or 'artistic' purposes do not require model releases.

If one is on public property and the subject is on public property, one can photograph the subject and publish it as one's work without any permission or release.

I went to Wikipedia and right up front it contradicts what you said here. The need for model releases pertains to public use of the photos (i.e. publishing), commercially *or not*.

I'd strongly suggest nobody take your advice seriously - look it up themselves. You didn't do the research on the Pana G1 but you blustered and pontificated quite a bit on that one, and were wrong. Caveat emptor.

For anyone who wants to do street photography and might be confused by Dale's last post: You often need to take what you read in Wikipedia with at least a grain of salt. In this case, it's not that Wikipedia is wrong, it's that Wikipedia covers a lot of ground and doesn't specifically deal with the laws of the United States. For correct information on the laws of the United States you need to consult an attorney familiar with the laws of the United States. Bert Krages is an attorney familiar with U.S. law and is also an avid photographer. His downloadable summary is reliable. Dale's random musings are not.

Its some days ago but an answer to this keeps staying in my head, also it touches the last discussions wich took place here. So I risk bringing it up again

You ask why would one choose to post here. I think its not about if someone tells me Im great or bad, it not about the ego-boost I get, or get not. (As nice as praise is of course.)

For me its about, do I have a question wich I want to have answered? Then I post here. Or if I know the photo IS good but want to know why people like or dislike it. If I only want praise its the wrong place.

So, its not about people telling me what they think about my images, its about me: Do I have a question?

Dale doesn't do random musings - Dale is very knowledgable about law. Russ is very authoritarian in this and many other matters, but many intelligent people would rather think for themselves than have Russ do the thinking for them. The reason why U.S. law is what it is is because of the Freemason (enlightened) founders and their rebellion against the authoritarian elite who worshipped the King and his erroneous interpretation of the law.

Edit: add that "argumentum ad verecundiam" is the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Sorry Dale, but you're wrong on the model release issue as far as the US goes, and the vague wording on Wikipedia doesn't prove anything. A model release is only required for commercial use here, not for art or editorial use. If the Krages PDF isn't sufficient to convince you, you might want to take a look at this article. You can also search for past entries on the PhotoAttorney blog, and I believe the PPA or one of those similar organizations has some information published on their website, but I don't feel like digging it up myself right now. The right to use a person's likeness in a work of art has been held up multiple times in US courts, including a high-profile case in NYC a couple years ago.

The way you said 'wrong' above is an absolute. As in "absolutely wrong." I would only suggest that that's extremely unlikely in U.S. law. What Wiki was saying is that there are precedents on both sides, depending on circumstances, as seen by judges and/or juries. I really don't think I have to look further into this, to see whether it's "always 100 percent OK no exceptions" to display a photo of someone as you stated. Unless you're convinced beyond any doubt that it's "always 100 percent OK no exceptions." And I'm not being sarcastic - I'm looking for that particular qualification before I spend the time on it.