wha-chu think of these?

[pbourdon]

My first degree in school was completed with a minor in photography, but I hadn't done a whole lot of shooting after leaving school (I was the last class at NMU to do everything on film) until just recently when I bought my brother's T1i so he could pay for the T2i he bought. I've been having a good time getting behind the lens again, and I'm just curious to hear what you guys think of these shots I took tonight. Right now all I'm shooting with is the 18-55mm kit lens that came with the T1i and no filters. Pretty bare bones for sure, but whatever. Any way here are the shots:

I think the composition on this one is pretty boring, perhaps it could use a crop; but what else?


This is actually one of those happy accident moments. I wanted a little more interesting composition but fired off the shot before I had taken the time to dial in the focus, so when I got it home I fucked around with it a little to get this. Whaddya think? It probably sucks right? But why? (understand that I like the fact that its outta focus and noisy, would it be better to exaggerate these characteristics further?)


I dig this one, but the sky is probably a little dark as are the trees in the left bit of the frame. I'm no whiz when it comes to photoshop (see the part about being the last class from NMU to do everything on film)


Ok, this shot and the one that follows are nearly identical, but there are some differences. Which one is more successful and why?


Here's the second

[pbourdon]

90 views and no one has any crits? I posted these for that reason. Just curious to know how I can make these better. If you dig 'em the way they are, let me know that too.

Thanks.

[OSECS]

Pic 3 has some merit. There's scale, tension and an interesting composition.

The rest seem like random snap shots, no real focus or compelling subject.

Just my $.02

[outabounds]

You're the one who minored in photography. I just run around the woods and lurk under bridges at night with a camera in my hand. That being said, I agree with OSECS. #3 has a nice perspective and comp. I have no idea why you don't think #2 is crap. The others are snapshots. What's interesting about your shadow in the last two, and why didn't you do anything with the underlit cross with the bells above it?

Sorry, you asked.

[pbourdon]

Pic 3 has some merit. There's scale, tension and an interesting composition.

The rest seem like random snap shots, no real focus or compelling subject.

Just my $.02

Thanks. I know that 3 is hands down the strongest of the group for sure. I hate the way I shot #1, but these photos were to some extent just "practice" I suppose in the sense that I'm shooting with a new (to me) camera and in the sense that I hadn't shot anything at night in a long time so I was more concerned with getting proper exposures and focus. That being said however, I was trying in #1 to take a cool establishing shot of the church and failed miserably in the sense that the composition is about as exciting as watching the someone do calculus. Personally, I liked the composition in 4 and 5, but now that you mention it, there is no real focus or subject is there? I think when I framed up the shot I liked the juxtaposition of the wild angles on the old part of the church in the background with the normal everyday straight boring angles of the entryway (which was added on years later). Also, I liked how you could see my shadow in the shot, but some may argue that becomes distracting. Looking at 4 and 5 again I notice that I spit the frame nearly in half vertically with the wall of the entry way...perhaps I should've moved that more left or right? I appreciate the feedback though because like I said, its been a while since I have been behind the lens shooting with any consistency.

Oh, and here's some info for you guys on this church. Its very famous for its design.
http://michiganmodern.org/buildings/...-sales-church/

what's a bummer though is the fact that the addition off the front of the building in no way honors Breuer's original design. Also, I guess originally he wanted the sidewalls to be all glass, but didn't end up doing it because the optical illusions that design would've cause would've induced nausea and vertigo in a large portion of the population.

[pappag]

Pic 3 is the only one worth saving. The others do nothing for me. If the focus is on the cross in #1, then I think there's too much going on to draw your attention to it and the immediate surroundings. Not sure what to make of #2 considering most of the photo is out of focus except for the moon or star on the very far edge. #4 and 5 have unnecessary shadows that diminish the quality of the images. Again, these don't evoke any sort of feeling or emotion or desire to look at them for more than a few seconds.

[pbourdon]

You're the one who minored in photography. I just run around the woods and lurk under bridges at night with a camera in my hand. That being said, I agree with OSECS. #3 has a nice perspective and comp. I have no idea why you don't think #2 is crap. The others are snapshots. What's interesting about your shadow in the last two, and why didn't you do anything with the underlit cross with the bells above it?

Sorry, you asked.

No worries man...I do think #2 is shitty (to an extent), notice I said "it probably sucks, but why?" The thing is my minor was heavy on photo classes, but not really heavy on art theory. There was an inside joke at Northern that NMU stands for 'Not Much of a University'.

I didn't do anything with the cross and bells because I only had about 40mins to shoot before I had to get on to bed. 6am comes awfully early and I didn't shoot the first shot until about 10:20, remember its west Michigan, its stays light here for a long time this time of year. I would've liked to have spent a couple of hours there taking more shots from other angles, but I simply didn't have time. I knew for sure on my way over there that I wanted to shoot #3, but beyond that I was more interested in taking some long exposures of this place at night. I appreciate the criticism, but I'd also appreciate some suggestions on how to improve 4 and 5 (2 is a throw-out any way) to something that is not a snapshot.

Thanks again.

[outabounds]

No worries man...I do think #2 is shitty (to an extent), notice I said "it probably sucks, but why?" The thing is my minor was heavy on photo classes, but not really heavy on art theory. There was an inside joke at Northern that NMU stands for 'Not Much of a University'.

I didn't do anything with the cross and bells because I only had about 40mins to shoot before I had to get on to bed. 6am comes awfully early and I didn't shoot the first shot until about 10:20, remember its west Michigan, its stays light here for a long time this time of year. I would've liked to have spent a couple of hours there taking more shots from other angles, but I simply didn't have time. I knew for sure on my way over there that I wanted to shoot #3, but beyond that I was more interested in taking some long exposures of this place at night. I appreciate the criticism, but I'd also appreciate some suggestions on how to improve 4 and 5 (2 is a throw-out any way) to something that is not a snapshot.

Thanks again.

You can always go back and shoot it some more. It'll be interesting to see what you get next time.

[pbourdon]

You can always go back and shoot it some more. It'll be interesting to see what you get next time.

Hahaha....I know, I had to keep telling myself last night, "dude, it'll be here tomorrow, you gotta work in the morning." #3 was actually chronologically the last angle I shot from, but I had intentions of getting up close to that wall and shooting nearly vertically. Its too bad 'cause I felt like my eye was just starting to get "warmed up" when it was time to pack up. I'm sure I'll have some more to post from this spot. And when I head back I'll have all of these suggestions in mind which will hopefully make for a set of much more compelling images.

[Lane Meyer]

I agree with most of what's been said already.

I suggest you spend some time thinking about exactly what you want to portray by shooting at that site before you return there. Think about what emotions you want to convey. Why are you shooting there? What do you want to tell about the place to someone who sees the images you will make? How are you going to shoot it, what elements of the scene do you want to highlight? What do you want to downplay? What do you previsualize in your mind's eye as the shots you want?

[pbourdon]

I agree with most of what's been said already.

I suggest you spend some time thinking about exactly what you want to portray by shooting at that site before you return there. Think about what emotions you want to convey. Why are you shooting there? What do you want to tell about the place to someone who sees the images you will make? How are you going to shoot it, what elements of the scene do you want to highlight? What do you want to downplay? What do you previsualize in your mind's eye as the shots you want?

Right on...thanks man. Last night I was rolling back from a friends and simply knew I wanted to take some night shots, but didn't really have a specific spot in mind and then as I rolled past St. Francis; I remembered that there are some cool lines on that building and pulled in the lot. As I mentioned earlier, #3 is the only image I had in my head when I pulled in the lot, but you're totally right though about having a focus and an intent, something I didn't really have there last night.

[jm2e]

Reason I don't like #1: It's just a snapshot of a church, it's kinda soft, there's a whole lot of street in the foreground, the trees on the left are lame, the shadows at the base of the building on the right look like sprinkler marks (maybe they are), I don't like the color.
Reason I don't like #2: It's blurry. More so, it looks like a 200% crop of the previous shot meant to show how soft it is. The moon/star thing looks kinda like it might just be dust on your sensor.
Reason I don't like #3: Actually, I like it. However, I don't like the color (too yellow?). The dirt patch or whatever in the bottom left is distracting, crop it out. Soft
Reason I don't like #4&5: They don't look different to me, your shadow has a lame shape, the entry way it too lit up (shoot the light out?). From an architectural standpoint, the roof/ceiling part of the entry way is a different building material/style than the rest of the structure. To my layman eye, this means that although they clearly tried to make it harmonious, it stands out like a sore thumb. Your shot accentuates this feature.