Even the "pros" can get it wrong

[Manfred M]

My wife was in Japan for a few weeks back in April, visiting our daughter that lives there. As a bit of a lark, they went off to a local photo studio for a "kimono" shoot, which included some images, the use of certain kimonos (lots of rules about what can be worn for specific reasons) and of course an album. Needless to say, this was not inexpensive.

My daughter went for an album package, and my wife, who did not want to have any more luggage than necessary asked for high quality images and insisted (knowing me) that these include the RAW files.

Here are two of the images and I rather suspect that had I (or any other member) posted them, the criticism would have been quite harsh. Here are a couple of examples that show poor composition and faulty exposure.

My wife is wear a "proper" kimono and my daughter is wearing a "schoolgirl" half kimono; a formal top with a split skirt that allowed schoolgirls to bicycle to school wearing an outfit like this one.


Image 1:



The exposure is totally off and the image is badly overexposed. When I trace around the image with Photoshop's eyedropper tool, I get values of (255, 255, 255), i.e. the background has been totally blown out. Fortunately, as I have the RAW data, the image is recoverable and I can get the white values to a maximum of 240, 240, 240, where they should be. Something I argue a lot is that a high key image is fine, but that proper exposure is still a requirement.




Image 2:






The lamp sticking out of my daughter's head and the top of the fence running through both of their heads are definitely compositional errors. Can this image be fixed; probably yes, but it will take a lot of work to do so.


The point I am trying to make is that even experienced pros can blow it, so we should be tolerant when we critique the work of members whole are just amateurs.

[Shadowman]

My first thoughts, you were going for a shadow-less capture and then I spotted the cast shadows at the subject's feet in the second image. The first is nearly without shadows and to maintain that look in post processing should be the major goal. With the second image, I'd try to remove the upper background and keep the wood.

[Manfred M]

My first thoughts, you were going for a shadow-less capture and then I spotted the cast shadows at the subject's feet in the second image. The first is nearly without shadows and to maintain that look in post processing should be the major goal. With the second image, I'd try to remove the upper background and keep the wood.

Thanks for the thoughts, John.

I personally find images that are totally shadowless a bit difficult as the subjects seem to be "floating in space", so if there were no shadows, I would add some to anchor them to terra firma...

As for the second one, I would look at extending the fencing up higher for sure and would just get rid of the lamp totally. I reall don't particularly care for this image so I suspect I won't bother with it. There are several more images that were taken that I did not bother to post.

I've uploaded the whole set to my Flickr site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/524694...57652917802672

[Polar01]

To me the word "Pro" means that the person is paid for what they do, no one said that they had to any good at what they did only, that they get paid for it.

Cheers: Allan

[Shadowman]

Thanks for the thoughts, John.

I personally find images that are totally shadowless a bit difficult as the subjects seem to be "floating in space", so if there were no shadows, I would add some to anchor them to terra firma...

As for the second one, I would look at extending the fencing up higher for sure and would just get rid of the lamp totally. I reall don't particularly care for this image so I suspect I won't bother with it. There are several more images that were taken that I did not bother to post.

I've uploaded the whole set to my Flickr site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/524694...57652917802672

I like quite a few of the others from your collection, especially those with the umbrellas completely captured (just a bit of a peeve of mine), it makes the composition seem whole.

[IzzieK]

Maybe the first one was taken on the assumption that the background will be easily replaced...your daughter is very pretty. Is the one getting married in June (or some date soon...?) Is she marrying a Japanese ? Just curious...

[Manfred M]

Maybe the first one was taken on the assumption that the background will be easily replaced...your daughter is very pretty. Is the one getting married in June (or some date soon...?) Is she marrying a Japanese ? Just curious...

The first one was apparently printed that way in the hard-copy album my daughter purchased, so it really is the "final product".

Yes, she is the one getting married in the summer, to a Japanese and will be moving to India after the wedding (he's already working there). She just got back from India, she and her fiance were doing some apartment hunting there.

[Manfred M]

To me the word "Pro" means that the person is paid for what they do, no one said that they had to any good at what they did only, that they get paid for it.

Cheers: Allan

And the same can be said about anyone; doctors, lawyers, dentists, teachers, plumbers, auto mechanics, etc. The main difference is that with those professions and trades, at least those in developed countries, must be certified as to being able to meet a minimum standard of competence and knowledge.

With photographers, all one has to do is hang out a sign out in front of a storefront (real or virtual) and get some customers. There is no guarantee of quality or competence. In theory the good ones should drive the bad ones out of business, but as commercial photography seems to have become a commodity, the ones that offer the lowest price seem to get the customers, regardless of the quality of their work.

[chauncey]

The point I am trying to make is that even experienced pros can blow it, so we should be tolerant when we critique the work of members whole are just amateurs.

I, for one, have been eternally grateful for those periodic slaps upside the head.

[Glenn NK]

To me the word "Pro" means that the person is paid for what they do, no one said that they had to any good at what they did only, that they get paid for it.

Cheers: Allan

This came to my mind looking at the images.

It's like calling the guy that does passport photos a pro. Although I will admit, their composition is usually OK.

[Bobobird]

Many of these "tourist" studios/booths etc see the pic as a by-product of another attraction - in this case the kimono. This particular photographer probably does passport photos too.

[Manfred M]

Many of these "tourist" studios/booths etc see the pic as a by-product of another attraction - in this case the kimono. This particular photographer probably does passport photos too.

Actually no, this was not a "tourist booth photographer". This was a full blown photo studio that does wedding photos, grad photos, event photos, etc, so the quality was expected to be high. A lot of Japanese wedding photos do the bride and groom wearing traditional Japanese clothing and then at the actual wedding ceremony, the dress is more or less what we would see in North America; white dress, tux, etc.

The package my wife and daughter bought included costume and full makeup (makeup artist doing makeup and hair; proper makeup room at the facility) and the session lasted 3 to 4 hours (with a price to match).

Typical wedding photo including a wedding kimono....

[Loose Canon]

The point I am trying to make is that even experienced pros can blow it, so we should be tolerant when we critique the work of members whole are just amateurs.

I’m not exactly sure what point you are referring to here Manfred.

The vast majority of so-called critiques I am seeing on this Forum now are in line with:

“Great capture, I like #1 best”. Except for if the Timers here offer up I’m not seeing much good critique that teeth could be sunk into. And that concerns me.

What is more is that it seems like when someone offers a shot that is, for example, so underexposed that it is the equivalent of unviewable, and it is mentioned, the response is that “I was going for a mood”, or worse, it is “art”. It goes from there. I am concerned that the really good critiques may be being being blown off.

Both of the shots you have posted are poor. And that is a shame because the subjects are so beautiful. Mother and Daughter.

I will say that a 255x background is not in itself Evil! But having it blowing light back into the subject as it is in #1 is. The shot is not only badly lit but poorly framed as presented. Again a shame because with just a bit of pose adjustment, and good lighting the shot would be a killer. The kimono looks flawless (wrinkles, sags, puffs, etc.) and a formal like pose might fit Japanese protocol, and Daughter’s (or is it Wife? Hard to tell between the two beauties!) smile is 10,000Ws!

When I first came to this Forum and got the cajones to post, I got some serious critique and it was incredibly helpful in a progression. “Nice shot. I like #1” isn’t and if that was what I got here in the early days I would have struggled even more than I already have.

That is not what I want to hear when I post a shot. While we should all be tolerant (and friendly), we should be also be as honest and helpful as our experience dictates and that might mean pointing out serious perceived flaws. How else will we learn anything about this thing?

Offer not only what we think but as importantly why we think it. We should also be receptive and open to any and all critique we receive regardless of whether or not we agree after it is offered and be darned glad those who know took the time to give.

As for the “pros” who blow it? I could cruise Craigslist and give you as many of those as there are really good photographers right here on this site who could blow them out of the water!

[Wavelength]

All the so called Pro are not experts, just professional, that they took it as their profession, am i right?.

After reading Terry's comment, i feel ashamed, because i am of that kind....

[JohnRostron]

The vast majority of so-called critiques I am seeing on this Forum now are in line with:

“Great capture, I like #1 best”.

I have to agree because I am one who regularly posts such comments. Having done so, I then see more constructive criticism from others and think "now why didn't I think of that?" I like to think that I am absorbing these criticisms so that, in time, I will be able to do the same, and incorporate their suggestions into my own work.

John

[Bobobird]

The vast majority of so-called critiques I am seeing on this Forum now are in line with:

“Great capture, I like #1 best”.

Other things keep me away from here more than I wish but for the most part that is what I have been doing for a while. Over time we (I) have begun to "feel" that the poster is not actually asking for c&c and is simply sharing his/her shots, good or bad (usually not bad). That almost forces one to go the "nice" route. I agree over time doing that gets boring and so we (I) just stop.

I like how our Glassman does it - he has specific issues he wants to address and makes us try to understand what they are. In that way c&c is possible even though one may not be quite at ease with the actual subject.

There are other issues as well but will not go into those.

Sorry, Manfred this is off topic and should really go to a separate thread.

[Bobobird]

Actually no, this was not a "tourist booth photographer".

Treating the tourist like a tourist. That is really shameful but the norm unfortunately.

[xpatUSA]

Thanks for the thoughts, John.

I personally find images that are totally shadowless a bit difficult as the subjects seem to be "floating in space", so if there were no shadows, I would add some to anchor them to terra firma...

Oddly enough, the only time I do that deliberately is when shooting cameras and lenses for sale. I use a white background and diffuse lighting to get that exact "floating in space" effect.

As to critiques, there are ways to do it. From blunt to polite. The former often offends, causing a defensive response, the latter usually does not.

Note that the words "polite" and "political" have the same root . . .

[rpcrowe]

Manfred wrote:
"And the same can be said about anyone; doctors, lawyers, dentists, teachers, plumbers, auto mechanics, etc. The main difference is that with those professions and trades, at least those in developed countries, must be certified as to being able to meet a minimum standard of competence and knowledge."

But, we have top remember that half of the doctors, dentists (you pick the profession) graduated in the bottom half of their class

Another thought: IMO, both your wife and daughter look really nice in the kimonos. I think that it partially stems from their excellent posture. Many "European" women look (again IMO) very awkward in kimonos and I think that is generally because many Western women have pretty poor posture...

[Mike Buckley]

half of the doctors, dentists (you pick the profession) graduated in the bottom half of their class

That's an example of taking a statistic out of context to the point that it can become misleading. Perhaps the bottom half of the class has 99% of the competency of the top half. Perhaps the bottom half is less qualified than the top half when meeting classroom requirements but is actually more qualified when meeting the everyday requirements of providing community healthcare services. Perhaps the bottom half improved their skills after graduating and perhaps the upper half let their skills decline. The list goes on and on, and as you mentioned, it can apply to any profession including photography.