Photography Critique

The idea for this thread came up in another here.  Essentially, while discussing where we got decent feedback on our work, sleepyhead suggested that we start our own group here so let's see if it has any legs. 

What we had in mind is a place to show our photography and receive constructive feedback whether it be technical and/or creative.  They key is for the photographer to give the rest of us some brief context of the photo and what kind of feedback they're looking for.  02Pilot said it well in that other thread, copied below. 

02Pilot said:

I can tell you what works at the photography salon I attend. When presenting work, the photographer first explains what they're showing and what sort of critique they are interested in. For example, at the last one I went to I showed about 25 prints that I was considering for submission to a competition. I needed to get it narrowed down to between six and ten. The discussion that followed was on the merits of the photos individually and as groups, but the focus always remained on the objective I set in the beginning.

If people just post photos and say "What do you think?" too often critical or negative comments are either withheld, or if they are included, taken badly by the person who posted their work. Some sort narrowing of purpose is necessary if a critique thread is going to work, IMO.

I'll add that if you're looking for technical feedback, I think it'd be helpful to have some basic EXIF data posted as well (listed below).  That said, let's do our best not let this devolve into a gear-only thread.

Info Summary:

• Context: what are you trying to achieve, who is the intended audience, etc.
• What kind of feedback are you looking for?

Nice-to-haves:

• Camera body & lens (this includes phones)
• Focal Length
• Aperture
• Shutter Speed
• ISO
• Post-processing software (specific settings would be overkill)

I'll start.

I'm trying to do motorsports photography in a more creative way.  In other words, less of the documentary-style we're all used to seeing.  I found the paddock to be one of the best places to find candid shots of the people, teams, and cars in a way we're not used to seeing them.  I'd love to earn some side-cash selling large prints as art to enthusiasts for their home/office/garage.

I'm looking for creative feedback primarily, but if you see some technical mistakes feel free to point them out.  That said, I'm more interested in what would make you want to hang something like this on your wall.  What would make the content more interesting?  Do the team members in the background make it more interesting or distracting?  Is the lighting and color-processing appropriate for this subject?

• Nikon D600 & Nikkor 50mm f/1.8
• f/1.8
• 1/50 sec
• ISO 200-500 depending on the shot
• Adobe Lightroom

edit: this first one was taken with the Tamron 20-40mm f/2.7-3.3 @ f/2.7 20mm 1/20 sec ISO400

A few thoughts:

I'm not a fan of the frontal perspective repeated in every shot. I know there are those who embrace it (look up the Dusseldorf school and Bernd & Hilda Becher if you want the origin story), but I'm not one of them. I'd be much more interested if the view of the cars changed, in distance, perspective, and completeness (sometimes fragments of a subject are more interesting than the whole thing).

You seem to suggest you want some dynamism in your shots, but I don't see it. Waiting until the mechanics are actively working on the cars, or at least doing something other than standing next to them, is necessary. Livening up a shot with people moving in it somewhere is a good idea, but the execution needs development.

The first shot is too wide and too far away. Using wides for this sort of thing is quite tricky unless you get really close, and even then it's not that easy to do well. Normal and short teles are your friends.

I don't know much about post-processing, so I will only say that to my eye the colors are oversaturated by a wide margin, but that's very much a personal taste thing (I shoot B&W primarily, so that gives you some idea of my sensibilities).

Here's an example of some photos by Lara Platman done in similar (though not identical) areas that I think might suggest some new approaches to you: http://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-36965592

Hope this helps. Let me know if anything I've said isn't clear.

EDIT: On the commercial side, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to get signed releases from the teams and/or the individuals in the shots if you plan to actively market the photos. Be aware that selling any sort of photography these days is difficult to say the least. Ironically, perhaps, the teams themselves may be interested if your work provides them a perspective their own PR stuff does not.

SECOND EDIT: Better link to Lara Platman's complete Through the Night project (the BBC link has some interesting accompanying text, so is still worth looking at): https://laraplatman.photoshelter.com/portfolio/G0000d5wwBURXQuQ

In reply to 02Pilot :

Incredibly helpful, clear, and much appreciated.  I'll try to respond in order.

Frontal perspective repetition is noted.  I actually have a few from a different perspective in completeness and fragments, but I thought I'd share these as a set first.  Maybe I should sprinkle some of those in as well if I ever get a chance to show in the future.

I hear you on the dynamism of the people in the shots.  In order to get a variety of cars I had to move down the paddock quickly and probably should have waited for a better shot of the team interacting with the cars.  Their positions are admittedly pretty random.  Another idea I had was to use a long exposure so that the team's actions were blurred against the still car.  I still think that would require a better activity than I have here.

Lara Platman's work is pretty similar to what I'm trying to accomplish.  Thank you for the link!

I don't think I'm ready to actually market my work yet, but you have a great point on getting signed releases from the teams/individuals.  It's something that's often overlooked by amateurs like myself.

With the exception of the saturation, do these shots address some of your feedback?

I'm not a very good photographer so take my input with a grain of salt.

The way the first three photos are composed it's not clear what the subject, or story is.  In the first one the car is so visually busy that it's hard to tell what you're looking at and if the crew member is the subject then he should be more of a focal point.  Both composition wise and focus wise.  I tried cropping the image to see if I liked it better and I do but with the shallow DOF (hard to avoid in those lighting conditions) it still doesn't really work for me.  I do love the vibrant colors in this image and the trendy over contrasty post processing really works in this case.

In the next two images kind of boring random race car parts are in sharp focus and nothing else is.  If you'd pointed the camera a little to the right and focused on the crew member I think they would have told a better story.  I like the fourth image although I think it would have been better still if you'd gotten all of the crew member.

I like your pictures.  Me personally, I think there are times when a shallow depth of field effect is being over-used.  Most of your pictures don't bother me in that way save for the Porsche 911 "Park Place" shot.  Having more of the car in focus would be nice, and added sharpness by stopping down a click or two wouldn't be a bad thing.  Conversely, I think that this worked quite well with the Lambo & guys working on the car shot right below the Park Place image.  

I kind of feel like your first image, the wider shot with the Tamron zoom (interesting lens, by the way, was not aware of it before) would work better either taken closer to the subject or further back.  

Note that I am a amateur hobbyist and have made very little money from photography work.  Everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

Matt B said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

 

This one is great!

In reply to Matt B :

I prefer the two you posted most recently to the earlier ones. I understand the idea of grouping the frontal shots together - indeed, that is one of the basic concepts in the Dusseldorf school typology approach - but for my money mixing them up is preferable. The latter two images are more dynamic and thus visually engaging. My criticism of the Porsche shot is that the foreground subject is too dark, while the lighter background pulls the eye there rather than where you (presumably) want it.

This raises another point that should probably be part of the ground rules here: anyone posting photos should note explicitly if it is OK for others to edit their photos for purposes of illustrating a point. If not explicitly allowed, I would consider it common courtesy that other people's photos should NOT be edited.

If you are OK with it Matt, I can edit the Porsche photo to show you what I'm talking about.

APEowner said:

I'm not a very good photographer so take my input with a grain of salt.

As long as you enjoy photography and want to take the time to give some feedback it is welcome. 

The way the first three photos are composed it's not clear what the subject, or story is.  In the first one the car is so visually busy that it's hard to tell what you're looking at and if the crew member is the subject then he should be more of a focal point.  Both composition wise and focus wise.  I tried cropping the image to see if I liked it better and I do but with the shallow DOF (hard to avoid in those lighting conditions) it still doesn't really work for me.  I do love the vibrant colors in this image and the trendy over contrasty post processing really works in this case.

I hear you on the busy-ness of that image.  I actually think a shallower DOF might have helped to tone down the background detail on that one.  As was mentioned before I was probably too far away to achieve that with f/2.7 though.  I also wish I had angled the shot upwards a bit as there's an awful lot of pavement at the bottom.  While I have some B&W work as well, the colors in these at night were too good to pass up, so thanks for the mention.

In the next two images kind of boring random race car parts are in sharp focus and nothing else is.  If you'd pointed the camera a little to the right and focused on the crew member I think they would have told a better story.  I like the fourth image although I think it would have been better still if you'd gotten all of the crew member.

I really like this idea.  I was very focused on the cars during this shoot (I get excited, so sue me), maybe to detriment of telling any kind of story. Next time I'm going try pretty much what you described.

pres589 said:

I like your pictures.  Me personally, I think there are times when a shallow depth of field effect is being over-used.  Most of your pictures don't bother me in that way save for the Porsche 911 "Park Place" shot.  Having more of the car in focus would be nice, and added sharpness by stopping down a click or two wouldn't be a bad thing.  Conversely, I think that this worked quite well with the Lambo & guys working on the car shot right below the Park Place image.  

I kind of feel like your first image, the wider shot with the Tamron zoom (interesting lens, by the way, was not aware of it before) would work better either taken closer to the subject or further back.  

Note that I am a amateur hobbyist and have made very little money from photography work.  Everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

First of all thanks!  Some of the shallow DOF is just a reality of shooting at night, handheld, without image stabilization, and a big aperture (excuses, excuses!).  Some is intentional though, so noted.

I agree the wide Patron prototype shot should have been closer.  BTW - that lens is apparently pretty rare and incredibly cheap.  It's a generation or two old and I got it for $100 used.  Weird specs, but I love it.

02Pilot said:

This raises another point that should probably be part of the ground rules here: anyone posting photos should note explicitly if it is OK for others to edit their photos for purposes of illustrating a point. If not explicitly allowed, I would consider it common courtesy that other people's photos should NOT be edited.

 

Crap!  That shows how little I know.  I'm not even aware of photography etiquette.  Thank you for bringing this up.

Matt-I apologize.  If you'd like me to edit my post and remove that I certainly will.

In reply to APEowner :

Thanks for the compliment and no harm done.

02Pilot said:

In reply to Matt B :

I prefer the two you posted most recently to the earlier ones. I understand the idea of grouping the frontal shots together - indeed, that is one of the basic concepts in the Dusseldorf school typology approach - but for my money mixing them up is preferable. The latter two images are more dynamic and thus visually engaging. My criticism of the Porsche shot is that the foreground subject is too dark, while the lighter background pulls the eye there rather than where you (presumably) want it.

This raises another point that should probably be part of the ground rules here: anyone posting photos should note explicitly if it is OK for others to edit their photos for purposes of illustrating a point. If not explicitly allowed, I would consider it common courtesy that other people's photos should NOT be edited.

If you are OK with it Matt, I can edit the Porsche photo to show you what I'm talking about.

Yeah I'm OK with some editing for the purposes of this thread, but those are good ground rules.  That said, for the record I do consider the work subject to copyright so it shouldn't be reused or resold without my permission (although let me know if you have any luck with that lol )

Matt B said:

First of all thanks!  Some of the shallow DOF is just a reality of shooting at night, handheld, without image stabilization, and a big aperture (excuses, excuses!).  Some is intentional though, so noted.

I agree the wide Patron prototype shot should have been closer.  BTW - that lens is apparently pretty rare and incredibly cheap.  It's a generation or two old and I got it for $100 used.  Weird specs, but I love it.

You're using a D600.  Very fast research says that it has quite good high ISO performance.  My advice would be to crank the ISO up a bit if needed.  I shoot with a K-5 II and I let auto ISO in the modes that allow for auto ISO to go up to 1600.  I believe that the D600 can produce good images that are not very noisy with at least ISO 800 if not 1600.  Another advantage of a full frame sensor.  For me, above 1600 gets hard to de-noise to my liking in post, although that's as much my skills as anything.  

The wide Patron shot could have been wider, to show more of the environment, I think.  Just another option.  Either more on the subject or the whole scene.  

The Tamron apparently wasn't produced in k-mount, which is probably why I've not heard of it before.  Seems like a much smaller and lighter alterative to the old Sigma 20-40 f2.8 full frame lens.  Pentax offers a 20-40 f2.8-4 but it's a crop only lens.

OK, so here are a few edits to illustrate what I was suggesting.

First off is the original photo cropped to eliminate some bright areas in the upper and right side areas that weren't adding anything specific to the photo. I then applied some gradients to rebalance the light and dark areas to improve the visibility of the crewman under the car and deemphasize the background.

Next is the same photo with the saturation reduced. To my eye this helps to balance the bright colors of the car with the less colorful but still important areas of the photo.

Finally, a monochrome version. I like this one best because it emphasizes the forms over the colors, but again that's just me. Nonetheless, I think that looking at a black and white version of any photo helps to better understand all of the compositional elements without the distraction of color.

In reply to pres589 :

Point taken on the full-frame ISO performance. You're right 1600 is pretty manageable on that body.  Also, I've often thought I needed to get into the practice of going wider-to-closer for every shot I feel is worth something for reasons you just mentioned.

In reply to 02Pilot :

I see what you mean. Cutting out the distracting lighting and enhancing the crewman in the lower frame helped quite a bit.  I hadn't thought of using a black and white version to help see compositional elements either, so thanks for the pro-tip.  

Matt B said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

I see what you mean. Cutting out the distracting lighting and enhancing the crewman in the lower frame helped quite a bit.  I hadn't thought of using a black and white version to help see compositional elements either, so thanks for the pro-tip.  

Yeah, it's handy, and with digital, only a click away. Sometimes looking at a very small version helps too - it eliminates lots of little details so you can see the big picture (so to speak). I recall reading a reminiscence of a Magnum photographer who said that Cartier-Bresson drove him nuts by always looking at his contact sheets upside down - he claimed it made it much easier to identify the good photos because the composition stood out regardless of the subject or orientation.

In your photo, there are lots of pairs of lines that stand out much more in the B&W version. Look at the car and several areas on the back wall. These pick up on the same idea as the legs of the crewman (imperfectly, as his legs aren't straight, but you take what you can get), and add a lot to the compositional interest of the shot. Same for the pattern of the floor and the patches on the crewman's coverall leg.

Green Nissan needs more happening. It would be a far more interesting shot if lots of people were in it doing various things, giving life to the otherwise inanimate subject and capturing the commotion of race prep. 

#2 and #3 are kinda boring. 

#4, the rear of the GT is the one I'd mostly likely hang on a wall or put in a mag, but the dude spraying stuff on the fenders kinda ruins it. 

The guy under the Porsche is cool, but I'm almost more interested in him than I am the rest of the car. What's he working on, who's helping him? 

so, yeah, I'll say I agree with the ground rules, and thanks MattB for starting this off.  I'll apologize if I've jumped the gun about editing something without permission.

I also realize that while I'm an okay hand, I clearly have a ways to go before I have something of my own to present here.     although, this might be a useful outlet for me come September/October.

Matt B said:

pres589 said:

I like your pictures.  Me personally, I think there are times when a shallow depth of field effect is being over-used.  Most of your pictures don't bother me in that way save for the Porsche 911 "Park Place" shot.  Having more of the car in focus would be nice, and added sharpness by stopping down a click or two wouldn't be a bad thing.  Conversely, I think that this worked quite well with the Lambo & guys working on the car shot right below the Park Place image.  

I kind of feel like your first image, the wider shot with the Tamron zoom (interesting lens, by the way, was not aware of it before) would work better either taken closer to the subject or further back.  

Note that I am a amateur hobbyist and have made very little money from photography work.  Everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

First of all thanks!  Some of the shallow DOF is just a reality of shooting at night, handheld, without image stabilization, and a big aperture (excuses, excuses!).  Some is intentional though, so noted.

I agree the wide Patron prototype shot should have been closer.  BTW - that lens is apparently pretty rare and incredibly cheap.  It's a generation or two old and I got it for $100 used.  Weird specs, but I love it.

So, the thing I have to add about Focus in this discussion is to consider "Where the Focus Point is"... when you're thinking of "opening up" the aperture for sharpness and increased focal plain (plane?).  With the 911-crewmember shot, and the Red Lambo shot, I feel that the focus point was too far forward (I'd guess with the Lambo it was right on the front bumper.).  If you'd focused closer to the door on the 911, and the 'firewall' on the Red Lambo, then you'll have a better chance of getting the visible car in focus.

sleepyhead said:

So, the thing I have to add about Focus in this discussion is to consider "Where the Focus Point is"... when you're thinking of "opening up" the aperture for sharpness and increased focal plain (plane?).  With the 911-crewmember shot, and the Red Lambo shot, I feel that the focus point was too far forward (I'd guess with the Lambo it was right on the front bumper.).  If you'd focused closer to the door on the 911, and the 'firewall' on the Red Lambo, then you'll have a better chance of getting the visible car in focus.

There are many ways to arrange a photograph using the available tools. My question to Matt would be did the photos posted come out as intended, or were you visualizing something different? As I said in the other thread, pre-visualization is a really important part of developing photographic skills. Artistic choice is another matter, and a subjective one. Within reason, for this type of photography I think using a narrow depth of field to isolate the subject is quite a useful approach.

02Pilot said:

sleepyhead said:

So, the thing I have to add about Focus in this discussion is to consider "Where the Focus Point is"... when you're thinking of "opening up" the aperture for sharpness and increased focal plain (plane?).  With the 911-crewmember shot, and the Red Lambo shot, I feel that the focus point was too far forward (I'd guess with the Lambo it was right on the front bumper.).  If you'd focused closer to the door on the 911, and the 'firewall' on the Red Lambo, then you'll have a better chance of getting the visible car in focus.

There are many ways to arrange a photograph using the available tools. My question to Matt would be did the photos posted come out as intended, or were you visualizing something different? As I said in the other thread, pre-visualization is a really important part of developing photographic skills. Artistic choice is another matter, and a subjective one. Within reason, for this type of photography I think using a narrow depth of field to isolate the subject is quite a useful approach.

A critique of a critique.  Okay, got it.  Most of my critique experience was actually writing-based, back in college.  So, I'll take the note, and will work toward making better comments.

In that vein, I'll focus in on the Red Lambo photograph, and how you could move the story either way, agreeing with your comment about making an informed choice.
If you stuck with the bumper focus point, and opened up the aperture, I think it would have been a more focused photo... since hopefully the focal plane would have been shallow enough that the bumper and headlights were only in focus.  Another option would be to move the focal plane back, and opening up some so that the front bumper and the top of the windshield are all in focus.  Although, you might have had to wait for the crew member to turn around so their face didn't draw attention.  Doing this, while not stopping down too much, would get the "visible parts" of the car all in focus but leave stuff in the background out of focus (aided by the low camera height, and long distance between the car and the awning).  As it is now, and this is probably exacerbated by the highly-inclined Lambo windshield, the wiper is a leading line that is "falling out of focus"... and ends up in an area of focus that is distracting to me.  I'm not sure if that's related to the lens construction, or the range of focus, or perhaps the post-processing, or perhaps just me?

sleepyhead said:

02Pilot said:

sleepyhead said:

So, the thing I have to add about Focus in this discussion is to consider "Where the Focus Point is"... when you're thinking of "opening up" the aperture for sharpness and increased focal plain (plane?).  With the 911-crewmember shot, and the Red Lambo shot, I feel that the focus point was too far forward (I'd guess with the Lambo it was right on the front bumper.).  If you'd focused closer to the door on the 911, and the 'firewall' on the Red Lambo, then you'll have a better chance of getting the visible car in focus.

There are many ways to arrange a photograph using the available tools. My question to Matt would be did the photos posted come out as intended, or were you visualizing something different? As I said in the other thread, pre-visualization is a really important part of developing photographic skills. Artistic choice is another matter, and a subjective one. Within reason, for this type of photography I think using a narrow depth of field to isolate the subject is quite a useful approach.

A critique of a critique.  Okay, got it.  Most of my critique experience was actually writing-based, back in college.  So, I'll take the note, and will work toward making better comments.

Sorry if I came across badly. This is one of the problems with doing this sort of thing on the internet. My point was simply to suggest that there is a difference between a critique of the success of a photograph based upon the photographer's intent, and a critique of that intent. The former is more useful than the latter, and in my mind at least what this sort of thread should strive for.

The back of the 911 was in focus and sharp, the front wasn't.  Stopping down a couple f-stops would have increased depth of field and increased sharpness and contrast without touching the focusing ring or changing where the camera is aimed.  

I'm not suggesting f8 and be there, more like f5.6 and be around, if that makes sense.

But what is the intended subject? In the Porsche photo, is the the mechanic under the car or the car itself? In the Lambo shot, is it the car or the nose (or even just the headlights)? Only the photographer can answer what they were trying to emphasize in their composition. Sure, you can alter the outcome by stopping down or various other adjustments, but these have to be means to an end, and every photographer's end is their own.

As an utterly unprofessional commentary, I would like the very first image better if it were cropped shorter top to bottom and still full width.  Think banner across the top of a webpage, or as in the center bar of an unconventional triptych.  The asphalt in the bottom third of the image does not add a great deal to the depth of the image since the converging lines of trailer and wall provide that in spades, and it feels like wasted space to me.