One of the engagement photos I have took is my personal favorite but I think that I didn't do a good job focusing the lens on Sarah's face because her earrings are out of focus when viewed with a loupe. Should I discard this photo from my collection or retain? Is it cool to have your subject slightly out of focus?

The photo is at this particular link.

Thanks for your feedback and help.

sincerely, Alfie

-- Albert Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 03, 2001

Answers

Alfie, it is your photo, your collection and your sweetie - keep it!

-- Margaret (fitz@neptune.fr), December 03, 2001.

Alfie,

Although it can be difficult to see in a scanned photo I believe the problem here is camera shake not poor focusing. There is a general un-sharpness across the frame not just Sarah's earring. Look at the cat's ID disc, the shaky writing is more evidence of this.

If you used Fuji 160 the probable shutter speed in this light at F2 must have been around 1/4 to 1/8 - difficult to hold steady!

Certainly don't discard the photo. It doesn't matter; if the photo is your favourite THAT is important. Many of the most famous photographs ever taken were technically incorrect but the MOMENT they captured - that is the important aspect. Just remember Capa's D-day pictures, the darkroom boys fried them, but they are all the better for it!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), December 03, 2001.

Thanks for your advice, Giles. I thought that it could have been camera shake. I guess that the Leica M6 would have been a lot more ideal considering that I could have handheld that around 1/8 and 1/15 speeds :)

Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 03, 2001.

Some of the best photos I've ever seen have been technically "bad".

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), December 03, 2001.

As already mentioned, it looks like camera shake, but so what, you have captured a lovely moment. Nice cat too. I'd keep it.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), December 03, 2001.

Come on, guys -- stop patronizing Alfie. The truth is, these photos are awful. There's no composition (too much ceiling), wayward lighting (racoon shadows across the eyes and nose), inept focusing, and obvious camera shake. Sorry to tell you, Alfie, that a disposable would have produced better results. You need to learn basics and stop wasting your time and money on high end gear. I suggest you sell your Leicas and get a Pentax K1000. Take a basic photo course with the extra money, and shoot lots of film until you get it right. Don't mean to be harsh, but this is getting absurd. I wonder -- is it possible that this guy is having us on?

-- Eve Hessler (Evehessler@hotmail.com), December 03, 2001.

I did use the Pentax K1000. It was not a solid camera to be honest. I had a HARDER time focusing the camera with its dim viewfinder. Geewhiz at least my older Leicaflex can deliver the performance for the long run.

About composition, I don't take formal portraits at all. I shoot by instinct. Why spend a zillion dollars learning photography in classes. I feel like natural photojournalistic candid and honest photograph is the best. I don't like to flatter my subjects with fancy lighting but shoot at ambient. After all, the point of shooting pictures for me is to capture the image and emotion and natural aspects of humanity without any intermediate foils.

And NO, I don't plan to take any professional photographic classes. Capa, Cartier-Bresson, etc. etc. didn't have a formal education in photography but in life and that can't be attained with a degree.

sincerely, Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 03, 2001.

Practice makes perfect

-- Hugh Jass (Hjass@hotmail.com), December 03, 2001.

Are you trying to equate yourself with HCB or Capa? I hope you're not. True, they didn't have formal degrees, but that has nothing to do with Eve's comments. I don't want to sound mean spirited, but I think you really should think about taking a photo class. Your photographs say nothing. Obviously you are attached to them because they are of your fiance. Regardless, I think you need to learn how to develop your eye, learn some of the basic rules of composition, design, space, color and lighting when it comes to photography. You need to get a little structure. You can't break rules and go by instinct unless you've already learned the rules and understand when and where and how to apply (or not) them. Of course, all of this is moot if you're born gifted like HCB or Capa. Yes, Alfie, even unposed, available-light photography requires an understand of things you would learn in a photo class. Look any of the work by the Magnum photographers, for example. I know we all love our Leicas and camera equipment. And you seem to be really caught up in buying lots of equipment. But it seems money spent on film and classes would be more valuable. You need to ask yourself I am doing this just to join the cult of Leica and have something to fetish over OR am i doing this to learn how to become a photographer. Cause in the end, the great photographers have used Leicas, Contaxes, Nikons, Canons and even Holgas. The equipment does guaranteee success. That's just my two cents.

-- Richard Le (rvle@yahoo.com), December 03, 2001.

Capa, Cartier-Bresson, etc. etc. didn't have a formal education in photography but in life and that can't be attained with a degree

This is very true. However, you have a long way to travel before you get to their level.

Shoot more film. Learn to throw out 90% of your shots. Be you own most hostile and unforgiving critic... and then maybe one day, a long time from now, you'll create images you're happy with and which will make others go "wow - how did he do that!"

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), December 03, 2001.

i would throw this frame away.

the focus might be on, but you really can't tell because the whole thing is soft. the composition isn't all that compelling, everything being dead center, but the background looking strange and crooked.

and, who needs another cat picture?

just MHO.

-- Pete Su (psu_13@yahoo.com), December 03, 2001.

Dear Eve: Why don't you tell us "All About" yourself, so that all of us here at the Leica forum can understand why you're so evil and petty? And by the way, don't try anything with ME; my friends call me "Addison"...

-- john costo (mahler@lvcm.com), December 03, 2001.

Throwing out 90%. That's good. I throw out 95%.

-- John Fleetwood (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), December 03, 2001.

C'mon, stop that Eve!

Intelligent, Euphemistic, Critical, Suspicious, Pessimistic....

All the qualities I'm looking for in a woman. Truly someone you can proudly take home to mom.

Oh please... don't tempt my weak soul.

;-)

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), December 03, 2001.

John, "All About ..." myself? Well, for a start, I'm a professional photojournalist. EH is my pseudonym. I'm 38 years old, live in NYC, shoot under my real name for: The Washington Post; The Times of London (and its Sunday Magazine); AP; and Life (until it went bust two years ago). I teach photography every other year at The New School, and have won various awards which I won't bother to list. I shoot M6s and favor extremes: the 24mm and 90mm. Sorry, for professional reasons I can't reveal my real name. Suffice it to say that I enjoy photography and wonder why guys like Alfie are preoccupied with equipment at the cost of their images.

Incidentally, Alfie, I studied photography for years (repeat: years). I studied lighting, composition, printing, history -- the art and science of this craft. Most of my colleagues have studied as well. Your approach is juvenile. You seem to think the gear will admit you into the rank of professionals. The price of admission is much greater.

One more thing. I still shoot with the K1000, just for the fun of it. And one of my K1000 shots won a World Press Award in 1998.

-- Eve Hessler (Evehessler@hotmail.com), December 03, 2001.

Simultaneously, a photograph can be:

1. Special to the photographer (or subject, etc).

2. Bad.

By "bad", I mean bad technically and, more importantly, bad in everyone else's opinion. I have no emotional connection to this photograph (I haven't met Sarah or the cat) and I think it's rather foul. Obviously, Alfie should keep the photo because it's special to him - in fact, I'm not even sure why he'd ask. However, for him to say that taking a photography class is a waste of time is, well, surprising. You don't need to "spend a zillion dollars" and, even if you do, it's far better to spend it on a class (and film) than a bunch of gear.

Critiquing is a two-way-street (particularly on the web). Here's a stinky photo of my own that I just couldn't bear to toss in the trash. It's a bad photograph technically and I'm sure just about everyone else will agree but I still like it:

ht tp://www.dingoboy.com/0112/images/misc/111901hammonds.jpg

Here's a photograph that I took on a cheap digital P&S:

http://www.ding oboy.com/9912/images/122999tracks.jpg

I knew this was good when I took it, I knew it was good when I saw it on the screen after and it's still one of my favorite photographs. More importantly, it was the photograph that made me wonder why 98% of my photos were very average and 2% were good - to me and more objectively, to others. Hence my photography class. Alfie seems to believe that understanding the more technical issues of photography would interfere with the "art". I think the opposite. It's just a fact that a portion of photography is about technical aspects. Understand these and your photographs will be better.

http://www.ding oboy.com/9912/images/122999tracks.jpg

Ok, off my soapbox now ;-)

Fergus

-- Fergus Hammond (fhammond@adobe.com), December 03, 2001.

Eve: I don't think a listing of your CV was necessary. Your comments have been spot-on, regardless of whether you are a pro or not.

-- Richard Le (rvle@yahoo.com), December 03, 2001.

Opps; let's try that again: http://ww w.dingoboy.com/9912/images/122999tracks.jpg

-- Fergus Hammond (fhammond@adobe.com), December 03, 2001.

I'd say that you should spend a lot more time photographing, and a lot less time writing. It would improve both occupations greatly.

-- Wilhelm (bmitch@home.com), December 03, 2001.

I think Eve's comments are reasonable. She's being blunt but I get the impression that she'd be the same way in person. I don't agree with John's comments about her being evil or petty. And I think she's justified in posting her "CV": it was asked for, after all. Personally, I like this kind of discussion on this site - it's not the crazy, out-of- control flaming that's so common on the Internet (no one has been compared to a Nazi yet!) but there's room for honest discussion.

Fergus

-- Fergus Hammond (fhammond@adobe.com), December 03, 2001.

Eve, I really fail to see how I was being patronising. I have answered Alfie's question with a fair, honest and polite statement. In my opinion your obvious intent to justify your advice by listing your many achievements and qualifications is rather vulgar.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), December 03, 2001.

ALFIE, do not be diappointed, but I really feel you better collect your photos as private collection and show them as prints to your close friends who are as experienced in photography as you are.

At first I also thought Eve was too harsh on you, because I´am a fan of your direct approach to the medium. But right now, it is late and there is a full moon in parts of central Europe, I´am supporting Eve.

Perhaps things look different different tomorrow morning, but for the time being, sell your LEICA IIIf think about photography classes, please !!!!

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), December 03, 2001.

Maybe Eve is one of those middle-aged online gender benders. :) Seriously, though, how would shooting for a newspaper, ap, etc qualify one person to be "God" on photography? I mean, all those news people, do is point a fully auto F5 in the general direction of something with a 200mm lens and hope that something comes out. Besides, the revoluntaries of photography have all come from the art world.

just my two cents.. J.D

-- J.D (booblehead@hotmail.com), December 03, 2001.

Fergus: I know someone asked for it, but why should Eve have to list her credentials? It's nobody's business. Should everyone list their CV? Her comments are accurate and that's enough for me. She's right-- Alfie, needs to stop worrying about his equipment and more about his photos. Every other post seems to include a comment about how if he had a Leica M6/R6/R8/new screen/better film/whatever, the picture would have been better. What's the point of using a Leica (or any other high end equipment, for that matter) if you're not going to think about what you're doing when you press the shutter release? I mean, Eve's right. The photos look like they were taken with a disposable camera. And then to compare oneself to HCB...

-- Richard Le (rvle@yahoo.com), December 03, 2001.

Richard, you're probably right. I didn't find it offensive 'though and thought it was rather interesting. Oh, maybe you're saying that the requestor shouldn't have asked for a CV (if that's what he was doing). In that case, I'd agree.

-- Fergus Hammond (fhammond@adobe.com), December 03, 2001.

When did Eve say she was a "God"? And besides quite a few people have come to same conclusion she came has.

I mean, all those news people, do is point a fully auto F5 in the general direction of something with a 200mm lens and hope that something comes out

Uh, didn't she say she uses Ms with 24/90mm lenses?

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), December 03, 2001.

Eve - could you pop your '98 WPA photo on here? I only started buying the WPA book in '99!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), December 03, 2001.

Alfie's pictures are worse than his posts ... the guy is strange, we (or I) know more about him than almost anyone else on this list ... he opens up his life to us but gets defensive (and sanctimonious) when people comment on his behavior (about his posts and his pictures). He doesn't seem to know the first thing about photography: could anyone who's read a single book on composition post pictures as he has done without any trace of shame or embarrassment? His enthusiasm for Leica and discussion on this list are in a way to be admired for its extremeness. But it puzzles me to think how a grown man can be so clueless about how others may perceive him or be annoyed by him...

-- DH (Dhils@yahoo.com), December 03, 2001.

Hi, Alfie:

For one, I want to address your questions:

1. Yes, it is a problematic photo. Reasons have already been explained in far much lenght and with much less care than necessary.

2. You said it is your favorite photo. If it is, how would you discard it ? I wouldn't.

3. I don´t think that having your subject slightly OOF is cool just because of it. No doubt some pictures could be excelent and still be out of focus because it was the right means of expresion. But that is completely another story.

Now, aside from your questions: I agree that trying to learn will make no harm and I agree that the problem seems to be camera shake instead of focus. And that is the most I feel myself (and anybody else, in fact, not whitstanding the amount of awards . . .) entitled to say to anybody who didn't request insults but help.

I hope you enjoy your photography and our company though you know what.

Regards, Alfie.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), December 03, 2001.

When I began my career as a trial lawyer, I was the typical young arrogant a**hole; I bullied, fought, and clawed my way through each motion, deposition, and trial, oblivious to the feelings of witnesses, opposing parties, and opposing lawyers. Over time, of course, I learned to be much more effective... I simply became nicer, A LOT nicer, and I found I got my way much more often with juries, judges, and opposing counsel (and made a WHOLE lot of money, by the way). There is a crying need for civility and graciousness in society generally, not just in the rarefied arena of the law.

I may or may not agree with Eve's opinions on Alfie, but I guarantee I could express any negative opinion in a kind and considerate way. To me, the mark of a professional is someone who can tell you to go to hell in a way that'll make you look forward to taking the trip. I'm not impressed with "blunt talkers"; that's just a euphemism for someone who's tactless and cruel. I'm not knocking Eve's bona fides; I just don't like the tenor of her delivery.

You know, Rodney King really was right: why can't we all just get along?

-- john costo (mahler@lvcm.com), December 03, 2001.

Folks, please don't run Eve off. Her experience and frankness are most welcome, not to mention her equipment choice is very much on-topic. Eve, tell us more, post some of your work.

-- Dan Brown (brpatnet@swbell.net), December 03, 2001.

I would agree with Eve's assessment of this image, particularly regarding the bad lighting, but add that if you want someone to take your images seriously, take the time to show a decent digital image. This one has a lot of really ugly dust spots that could have been easily cleaned up.

I disagree about looking for someone "nice." Of course, it is easier. But when I asked someone to work with me in a mentor role, I chose the biggest hard-ass around, mostly because he was dead on with his criticisms and never tried to make it "nice." He's been a tremendous help and influence, and I would look at the quality of the criticism, not the delivery. Who learns from "nice"?

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), December 03, 2001.

Eve is spot on in her criticism of the photo, and straightforward.

As she is (I think) new to the forum and community, she perhaps is unaware of Alfie's previous postings-and perhaps the persona he has created for himself in this community. This is a discussion forum and community, not a photography class, after all.

Alfie comes across (IMHO) as someone who is open, eager, enthusiastic, but a beginner when it comes to photography. Well, a lot of us are tyros. At least he posts his pictures.

So, had she known, she might well have been kinder in her choice of words. After all, this is Alfie's long promised snapshot of his new bride.

And this is a community, where many, if not most posters use their names openly. You are entitled to your privacy, of course, Eve, but it would be interesting to learn what professional (as opposed to privacy) reasons, as you state, require anonymity in a fairly small community such as this.

And reading your post straight, why should Alfie get rid of his Leica and use a Pentax K-1000. In terms of functionality, are they not very similar cameras, with similar basic controls in similar places? Surely you are not suggesting that the Leica is something "special" to be earned, simply because it is an expensive camera?

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 03, 2001.

There's craft and then there's art and then there is crap. I guess it all adds up whether to suck or not to suck!

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), December 03, 2001.

Alfie:

Bottom line on this & your engagement shots: don't be discouraged, but don't quit your day job. Although I sympathize w/John Costo's nice guy sentiments, I believe the comments of Eve Hessler, Richard Le, & others are entirely correct & far from rude or petty. I'm a practicing attorney, too, & sometimes you just have to tell clients the cold, hard truth. You asked for feedback & help in a public forum & you should be man enough to take constructive criticism. I don't think anybody really dislikes you personally, just the photos you've posted. As to your "I don't need no stinkin' photo classes" philosophy, a formal education is not absolutely necessary to learn any art, craft, or whatnot, but the vast majority of people lack the extraordinary talent, time, desire, &/or self-discipline necessary to teach themselves to reach a decent level of competency. You may well be that 1-in-a-million "intuitive" genius, but it certainly hasn't shown in the pix we've seen so far & I mean that in the nicest way possible. Also, FYI, many of your self-taught photo heroes had formal training in other, usually pictorial, arts (e.g., painting in HCB's case).

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), December 03, 2001.

I'm just not buying the "Sorry, for professional reasons I can't reveal my real name..." business, but oh well. But I have to thank EH for slamming the work and not the person. I love juicy threads, but not mean ones.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), December 03, 2001.

Gentlemen, I posted my CV because it was asked for, and because I thought it might validate my contribution to this forum. My criticism of Alfie is blunt because I favor economy of words and images. (What is the Leica if not an economical tool.) In my early replies to Alfie I tried diplomacy, instructive criticism. That failed. My posts have become increasingly severe because he asks for it -- with his relentless, unedited, unrestrained comments and posts. It's not his enthusiasm that I object to. I object to his hijacking this forum and presenting us night and day with material that might charitably be described as inconsequential. By the way, I'd be happy to post some of my work. How do I include it in this response?

-- Eve Hessler (Evehessler@hotmail.com), December 03, 2001.

Well... I serve as a mentor right now to two young college men, one of whom lives in my house. They're doing extremely well, and although I won't attribute that solely (or even largely) to my mentoring, I think my gentle but persistent reasonableness has played a significant factor.

Regardless, no one here is mentoring Alfie. That relationship can't be effected online. He's simply a human being reaching out for some online companionship. And I'm surprised no one has picked up on the subtleties in Alfie's posts: e.g., he's stated on more than one occasion that his eyesight is bad and/or getting worse. Perhaps he has a sight problem and has trouble focussing. Shall we discourage him from photography completely?!? Is sending him to a Pentax K1000 the solution when the Leica has a much brighter viewfinder? SO WHAT is he likes Leicas? Isn't he more likely to learn with equipment he enjoys using?< p>Honestly, it's a good thing I don't drink, because I wouldn't want to imbibe with some of you; if you're this nice when you're sober, Lord knows what you're like when you're drunk.

-- john costo (mahler@lvcm.com), December 03, 2001.

The best way is just to post a link to work that is already on the web.

Read this also.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), December 03, 2001.

Sorry, Eve, I guess I just missed your earlier posts responding to Alfie. So, naturally my comments predicated on that assumption don't apply to you at all.

As for hijacking the forum, I can see that a lot of the posters take the same view as yourself.

For my part, I am content to let Tony Rowlett, the moderator, be the judge of that. He is, after all, the guy who set the forum up, and slaves over it daily, weeding and pruning :-) Personally, I don't mind Alfie's lengthy posts, or feel that they crowd out dialogue, simply because there is a lot else in the forum to read daily aside from his posts.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 03, 2001.

While I will admit that I don't think much of Alfie's photos and the critique regarding camera shake is quite correct), I have to say that I get very annoyed at the concept the one has to "earn" the right to own expensive equipment.

That my friends, is a crock of shit. If you have worked hard enough in your life at whatever it is you do to have extra money to spend, then by all means, spend it on whatever you like. I'm a crappy guitar player, but I bought a nice guitar because I like playing it. I'm an so-so chef, but I have a very nice set of kitchen knives. So alfie is a beginner photographer and wants to spend a bunch of cash on it. Who the hell cares? Let him. It shouldn't affect your life. Besides, this is all over cameras from a company that puts out crap like this. I'm sure that camera was designed to only take the best images huh? Leica would never spit on it's find journalistic roots and pander to the equipment collector fetishist. Of course not. All 700 of those cameras are out there being used as a daily shooter I'll bet.

And the concept of "getting it right" or trying to "say something with your photographs" is just as stupid. Some of us are striving to make a career of photography and some of us are just trying to have fun. Should I never play my guitar in public until I've had years and years of lessons? Don't get me wrong, I've spent plenty of time in classes and schools studying photography. But not everyone needs or wants to do that. His photography would be improved if he took a class or two. But if he wants to see himself as a self taught later day HCB, more power to him. I could care less.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), December 03, 2001.

Poor Alfie! People have been clamouring for him to show his engagement photos so he's showing them because he was urged to, not necessarily because he thinks they're good enough to be exhibited. He started out by saying he knew he hadn't done a good job with this one, so why rub salt in the wound? If he was boasting about it, I'd understand it.

We have a worthy and talented membership in this Forum. I was interested to read Eve's CV, because it helps to put her comments into context. If I ever get around to buying a scanner, I'll *definitely* post some of my stuff here for criticism. However, when I do so, I'll try to select shots that I feel are presentable!

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), December 03, 2001.

Okay!!! Everybody to a neutral corner. Now!!!

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), December 03, 2001.

If you have worked hard enough in your life at whatever it is you do to have extra money to spend, then by all means, spend it on whatever you like

One can spend money on whatever they want. If someone wants to buy a Leica to make poor family snaps, that's fine. It's no different than an un-named relative of mine who bought a Porsche Boxster to drive two kids to school. They don't fit legally in the only seat, their stuff barely fits in the trunk, but, hey! it's a Porsche.

As long as he doesn't think it makes his photos good, or him a special person, that's fine. The problem is when people think that their ability to spend money on a specific camera brand makes them better photographers.

he's stated on more than one occasion that his eyesight is bad and/or getting worse

And if I were his photography teacher, and he does need a teacher, I would recommend an autofocus camera with image stabilizing lenses. Because there's no point in owning a camera with which you can't make decent photos...

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), December 03, 2001.

"And if I were his photography teacher, and he does need a teacher, I would recommend an autofocus camera with image stabilizing lenses. Because there's no point in owning a camera with which you can't make decent photos..."

This is the best advice that this thread has produced. Alfie is of course, free to ignore it. I stand by my statement that he need not ever take a class if he doesn't want to (though he might find it fun). But if I had a friend with eyesight problems. This would be the camera equipment advice I would give him.

But as we all know, leicas have that particular lure........

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), December 04, 2001.

Alfie, appears, it’s very easy to spoil a pretty model with a bad composition (proportions) and shooting techniques.

-- Victor Randin (ved@enran.com.ua), December 04, 2001.

Alfie, it was my aging eyesight and inability to easily focus SLRs that led me to Leica cameras. Rangefinder focussing is much easier for me, with or without my glasses.

-- John Fleetwood (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), December 04, 2001.

Alfie

If it was my shot I would dispose of it quickly. It is not sharp (camera shake), lighting is awful, composition is awkward. I don't think it is cool to have the main subject out of focus, but sometimes it is when enough people decide that it is. Not helpful, but a fact. Some "great" photos are unsharp. You are brave to post it, and I urge you to continue to work at it. It is no big deal , we all take bad shots, but when we do, we do not show them to others - we just consign them to the trash. Ironically if you were a famous photographer we would try and look beyond the poor image and try and find out "what you were intending" and we might even find it amusing and meaningful - precisely because your model is awkward and in this way vulnerable and "natural" etc. etc.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), December 04, 2001.

Albert,

A lovely lady ! You may improve the picture by croping out the slanted light bar on the left, which distract from the main subject. Secondly, there is a bulge at Sarah's back. Perhaps, if you crop the bottom part of the picture, up to the arm and thus cut off the bulge, Sarah may like this picture better At the end, it is what Sarah likes that counts

My 2 cents

martin

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), December 04, 2001.

Ahahahahahahaha! Alfie is an artist in driving people crazy! Alfie, I like you, but your out-of-focus shot of Sarah is really bad! It can be a cool thing to have your subject out of focus, but only if you know how to do it right. I find some of Petter Hegre's (of My Wife fame) out-of-focus shots really beautiful, especially those in his latest project, Russian Doll. You can see Hegre's out- of-focus pictures of his Russian partner in the www.nerve.com site (join the site and log onto http://www.nerve.com/Photography/Hegre/wifey/). [WARNING: Lots of nudity featured in the mentioned site and in Hegre's photos; don't go there if you find nudity in photography distasteful.]

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), December 04, 2001.

When I began my career as a trial lawyer, I was the typical young arrogant a**hole; I bullied, fought, and clawed my way through each motion, deposition, and trial, oblivious to the feelings of witnesses, opposing parties, and opposing lawyers. Over time, of course, I learned to be much more effective... I simply became nicer, A LOT nicer, and I found I got my way much more often with juries, judges, and opposing counsel (and made a WHOLE lot of money, by the way). There is a crying need for civility and graciousness in society generally, not just in the rarefied arena of the law.

I may or may not agree with Eve's opinions on Alfie, but I guarantee I could express any negative opinion in a kind and considerate way. To me, the mark of a professional is someone who can tell you to go to hell in a way that'll make you look forward to taking the trip. I'm not impressed with "blunt talkers"; that's just a euphemism for someone who's tactless and cruel. I'm not knocking Eve's bona fides; I just don't like the tenor of her delivery.

You know, Rodney King really was right: why can't we all just get along? I have to quote every last word of this and agree with it entirely, absolutely, and in the strongest sense of every word. Well said, perfectly put! DAMN RIGHT! Regards, Duncan http://groups.yahoo.com/group/leicam6

-- Duncan (airborn@euromail.se), December 04, 2001.

Hi Everyone I would never have had the courage to post the picture that Alfie did, nor to have written some of the messages he has. I enjoy this website very much and am sorry for when things get personal. I thought the attacks on Eve were unfair -- Alfie asked for feedback and he got it. If he wanted only "nice feedback", then he can say so. I also notice that he repeatedly refuses valuable advice like taking a class, which is his loss and always will be. One constructive thought I had was that he might invest in some darkroom eqwuipment, shoot black and white (XP2 works so he does not have to develop the film), and try printing some of his shots. He would then be able to learn on his own and in his own privacy, which seems to be the only reason not to take a class. The other comments about the technical aspects of this shot were right -- it is bad. But, the only way we learn is by taking bad shots and learning why they are bad. I frankly thank Eve and others for their candor.

-- Peter Brock (p.j.brock@worldnet.att.net), December 08, 2001.

Meanness and rudeness are 100% exclusive from honesty and sharpness. One need not ever cut down the person. It's very simple, and I'm simply floored at the number of people who seem to not understand this.

"You're a joke!" "Joe is a joke!" Rude statements.

"The photograph isn't interesting." "The photograph isn't sharp; try again." Honest and sharp statements.

Any questions?

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), December 08, 2001.

The photo is not sharp. Martin's right - cropping out the light switch on the left and her arm below will help.

-- Ronald Blachly (theblach@yahoo.com), December 08, 2001.

>About composition, I don't take formal portraits at all. I shoot by instinct.

Alfie, judging by these pictures your instincts are not in focus.

>Why spend a zillion dollars learning photography in classes.

To improve your photography. And these classes cost very little at your local community center.

>I feel like natural photojournalistic candid and honest photograph is the best. I don't like to flatter my subjects with fancy lighting but shoot at ambient.

You need to understand how to see ambient lighting that brings out the "character" in your subject. It is not to flatter but to show respect and creativity.

>After all, the point of shooting pictures for me is to capture the image and emotion and natural aspects of humanity without any intermediate foils.

I am not seeing any of this in your photos. If it is good enough for you then you should enjoy them in private.

>And NO, I don't plan to take any professional photographic classes. Capa, Cartier-Bresson, etc. etc. didn't have a formal education in photography but in life and that can't be attained with a degree.

But they obvious have talent and the desire to learn. Anyway, early HCB photos were pretty oridinary so if you, Alfie Wang, stop and listen maybe you will learn something in this forum.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), December 08, 2001.

It is extraordinary how these Alfie Wang threads have developed. Maybe Alfie is really a psychologist. Certainly his photos are not very convincing.

Whoever said that pro snappers just point an F5 at the action and hope for the best should take a look at some pro photographers' contact sheets or slide sleeves (or raw chip downloads, these days, I guess). It's nonsense.

I suspect that as usual Eve is being attacked because she's a competent woman in a male-dominated arena. Just as Cindy Sherman, Susan Sontag and Sally Mann come in for regular stick from the equipment buffs. She's evidently a success in an area in which most members of this forum can only fantasise about getting a foot on the ladder. As for her incognito, that's her own business.

And with this final shot, gentlemen (and ladies), I leave you for more interesting horizons. Tony, thanks for the fun while it lasted.

Rob (not God, yet) Appleby.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 11, 2001.

We're still waiting to see an example of Eve's work! Come on Eve - show us!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), December 11, 2001.