lf-photo.org.uk

Just a couple of shots, both taken by Helen. The first one taken in the middle of the day, the other near sunset, a couple of weeks ago.

Hi Jo/Helen,

Have these started off as colour transparencies?

I like the 1st one. The composition works for me because it tells me that the light house must be battered by rough sea when the weather is bad. Someone must have taken their time to lay these breakwalls in an orderly fashion. The sky is nice and you just wished that the light house got lit by a shaft of sunlight.

I would like to see the colour of the sky on the 2nd one since you pointed out that it was taken near sunset. Shame about the air trails which spoilt the sky in my opinion. If it was me, I would have missed the foreground rocks and concentrate on the lighthouse with the tides coming in. Technical aspect of both pictures are good.

Regards

Chong

Don't kill me! I'm sometimes harsh in my critics because I'm always telling how I feel and I don't like to lie!

I feel that the second one is more like a tourist’s image! I don’t like it at all!

The first however is more like it! Here you composed the image well and it’s more drama in it too! I think I would have made the sky aria a little bit darker. Sometimes waiting is good specially when you living in the close aria! Wait for the right whether! Until the things arrange themselves the way you want it! I have a landscape image I waited almost a year to get it right! I don’t know the techs on this image but I would use a dark red filter on this one

Uranium, one of the most challenging aspects of critiquing is the need for objectivity, so I'd like to take up one of your comments ...

I feel that the first one is more like a tourist’s image! I don’t like it at all!

These are your feelings, but what are your thoughts about tourist images? Do you mean the first one is a snapshot that a tourist might have taken, or a postcard shot that might only appeal to a tourist? If the first one, then I think it's unlikely that the average day-tripper could have taken this shot with a run-of-the-mill point&shoot - note the depth of field. If a potential postcard shot, doesn't that make the first shot a potential winner - for commercial reasons if for no other?

The composition in the first shot appears strong by virtue of the interest in the foreground and the feature in the distance, and the tones, given the contrast between land and sky, are well rendered. Plus, I'm a sucker for strong leading lines. I find the second image less appealing for this reason. Perhaps the contrast could be a tad higher, but I'm viewing this on my monitor so I have to allow some latitude on this point.

One reason I'm commenting on the first image is that I find it attractive and interesting, which is a matter of its appeal to me and not a reflection on any inherent quality. It may be difficult to distinguish between one's feelings and one's opinions, but it's worth the effort if you want to help the photographer.

Joanna, some of the impact of the composition is lost on my screen if an image is taller than 600 - I have to start closing toolbars to see it in its entirety.

Well Helen, I would say both pictures have their merits, but neither quite work for me. The first has fab foreground - a real find - but the light house just seems to poke out of it for no reason. There is no connection between the two. The second picture has the base of the light house and that gives the story of the locale. Any way you can combine the two, maybe with a higher view point on the first?
Charles

Helen,

I'm with Charles on this one. The first one is close to something. There's an image in there, but I think it wants to be take from a slightly higher viewpoint. The lighthouse appears to be floating somewhere....

And while I am going to risk being "basalted" again, I think a square crop could do quite nicely in that case as well. (Ducking and running).

The second image has a certain something, but could do with less contrails across it. They do really spoil the image for me.... Any filters in that image?

Marc

Hi folks

Just to answer a couple of points :

These shots were taken on Acros, as an exercise in tone and composition, so no colour version is available.

A higher viewpoint for the first shot should be relatively easy, as long as we could find a way of hovering at a constant altitude of about 8 feet above the sand

Jet trails can easily be avoided, as long as we can get European air traffic control centres to suspend all transatlantic flights for a few hours

Those of you who know Helen well enough should realise that she never goes anywhere without her trusty orange filter

Marc, if you don't stop suggesting square crops, I'm going to have to reveal to everyone the secret of your pocket camera

Nonetheless, it is always interesting to hear comments.

Joanna Carter wrote:Marc, if you don't stop suggesting square crops, I'm going to have to reveal to everyone the secret of your pocket camera

Wot, you mean my trusty 6x6 Rolleiflex? The one that inspires me to suggest square crops?
Or are you talking about my Mamiya 330, which is also square?


Marc

masch wrote:Wot, you mean my trusty 6x6 Rolleiflex? The one that inspires me to suggest square crops?
Or are you talking about my Mamiya 330, which is also square?
Marc

If your pockets are that big, you could dispense with the Photo-Trekker completely

Where is that I remember reading that some Germans could be a bit square??
More to the point, does anyone know whether there are any LF cameras with square backs?
Charles

More to the point, does anyone know whether there are any LF cameras with square backs?

Now there's an interesting thought ... but where can I buy square film? 6x6 inches would be fun.

Ask a stupid question...

You could buy a 10x8" and then you can have up to 8" square picture in the middle - none of these keyhole-sized 4x5 pictures

Andrew (4x5" user)

PS Marc / Charles - you could get hold of a Sinar Zoom II RFH and then have anything from 6x4.5 up to 6x12 on the same roll - MF & LF in one...