This shot was again taken at the ROM. See previous posting. A youngster peering into one of the aquariums that house live insects (I think it was the giant cockroaches). Anyways, transfixed enough not to notice me approach and do my thing.

Exposure information:

Leica M6 + 35 mm Summilux 1/30 sec f1.4 (ambient lighting from the aquariums) Ilford Delta 3200 rated at 3200

Again, to keep this professional... any constructive comments are welcome.

Thanks in advance,

John.

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 14, 2002

Answers

John,

That's much better. One topic. Nice lighting effect. Subject nicely offset. Good choice of lens/film/lighting.

Nice shot.

-- David Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), February 14, 2002.

Yeah. This one I like. Good composition balanced with the young fellow's expression, combined with the mystery of what he's so absorbed by. The image is a little soft, but that fits nicely with the mood, I think. Nice work.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), February 14, 2002.

John: Was this horizontal or vertical? You are using a camera with a specific frame ratio, and that is a very significant point about using Leicas. If you don't compose and use the frame properly, you can use any camera and crop, and then what is the point of Leica, other than name dropping.

-- Ian MacEachern (iwmac@sympatico.ca), February 14, 2002.

Wow, this one is great! I don't get the point of the previous poster about name dropping, never thought leicas (or any top quality piece of stuff) should be used without cropping/enlarging. Anyway, this is a really good shot, one which I wolud tipically save in a roll. Bravo

-- Antonio Carrus (Milan, Italy) (antoniocarrus@yahoo.it), February 14, 2002.

very nice picture.

ian: that is utter nonsense. of course it is desirable to fill the whole frame of the negative but cropping is one of the most important and highly difficult tasks in the darkroom. there is no ideal ratio, may a preferred one. some people say 6x7 is ideal. i personally fell that 35mm is a bit too wide. have a look at the book "photography and its double", about how man ray cropped his negatives to get his most famous pictures

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), February 14, 2002.

I want this review process to be fair and impartial so I'll try to be as accomodating as possible to the comments that are recieved. For Ian's comments, the full frame is posted below:

Composed horizontal, I included some background elements because I wasn't sure how much isolation the 35 lux gives you at 1.4 when your subject is less than a meter from the film. Obviously, quite a bit, but the blurred writing in the background is distracting so it was cropped out.

This is a lesson that I learned from another critique by Mr. Barker. Almost shots can be strengthened by moderate cropping (or in that other example, severe cropping). Normally, I don't like to crop too much so most of the negative real-estate is utilized in the above crop.

John.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 14, 2002.

no need to crop. I like the larger context and your image touches us all that remember the feeling of discovery and exploration when we were younger. this image fits well with the thread discussing why someone would ever need to buy a f1.4 lens when f2 apertures were considerably cheaper. perfect example.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), February 14, 2002.

John, I thought the shot as first presented was so-so. I couldn't put my finger on what was bothering me about it. Now looking at the uncropped shot, I see what the problem was. I definitely think the uncropped shot is better. The composition seems more balanced now, whereas the cropped version seemed tentative. Additionally the cropped version gives more of a context for the picture. You see more of the aquarium, plus the sign (or whatever, with the letters) is visible and adds that nice definition of the back of the kid's head. Another thing that had bothered me about the cropped version was the ratio. It seemed like the ratio you'd get with 6x4.5 medium format camera, which I personally hate. Personally, I usually don't crop with 35mm, but when I do crop, I try to maintain the ratio you'd get with full frame. Otherwise, I use my rollei and shot square.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), February 14, 2002.

The picture leaves the viewer with the lingering question...what is he looking at? I think that question should have been answered.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), February 14, 2002.

. . . . and Henri Cartier-Bresson would tell you that no image can be improved by cropping. If you do crop, try to crop to aspect ratios: 35mm=1:1.5;8x10=1:1.25;5x7=1:1.4;square=1:1. Full frame is a very strong image, good job John.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), February 14, 2002.

Cropping dogma aside, the picture has more narrative power if we can see what the boy is looking at in the case. Do the frames after this one on the roll show his surprise or fear or something else? I like the wonder in this frame, but I would rather see the boy face-to-face with the little monster behind the lucite. Just a thought.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), February 14, 2002.

Very nicely done. I would like to see Kerry (previous post) obtain this image with his new noisy Cannon digital.

-- Don M (maldos@home.com), February 14, 2002.

I like the abiguity and the lingering unknown quality. the narrative is presented for the viewer to finish the story, which I think adds the compelling tension that is needed. we all have a clue as to what the subject is experiencing .. and I think that is enough. perhaps this is because John has provided to us the context. without that, a turtle (or raptor) looking back at the boy would have certainly filled in the blanks.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), February 14, 2002.

"and Henri Cartier-Bresson would tell you that no image can be improved by cropping"

He also said "Photography is rubbish".

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 14, 2002.

Hi, John:

Yes ! I like this better, too.

And I also like the uncropped version better.

I Spanish we use to say "second parts have never been better" and I think that the way you see your image for the first time usually is better than a part of it. In fact there was(were) some reason(s) why we made the photo the way we did. I assume it has a lot to do with the "negative space" concept that is not always clear enough in our concious look while framing an image but is responsible for an important part of our evaluation of the picture later on. What has happened to me many times is that I strugle to isolate what I feel is the important content of a picture and crop in camera too much of the environment. Result: the picture lacks the impact I first found in the scene though the "important" elements are all clearly evident.

Obvious exception: you can't get any closer and more content than really intended gets in your frame anyhow.

Sorry, John, too long and a little pretentious answer perhaps, isn't it? But I really enjoyed your photo.

Regards !

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), February 14, 2002.

If my recollection is correct of seeing the negative of HCB's most famous man jumping over a puddle, it is HUGELY cropped. It looks like half the frame is consumed by an out of focus open door or something.

-- dave yoder (lists@daveyoder.com), February 14, 2002.

I like the uncropped version better. It shows a little more of the environment. Great light on the boy's face, and an overall good feeling to the shot.

My only nit would be the overly bright area on the right.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), February 14, 2002.

John,

The uncropped version is so much better. Context,is, as 'they' say everything. To get hyper-critical, a bit lower and framed just a bit more to the right would add even more information. The background elements give the necessary context.

To crop, or not to crop? This may get argued more than 'film vs. digital', or 'colour vs. B&W', and is an endless topic.

Rather than consider cropping, how about considering composing. There is a specific and finite shape to the 35mm frame. It has an aesthetic of its own, and that can be 'honoured' (for want of a better term) by understanding the internal dynamics of the frame and the aspect ratio of 35mm film. (not sure if I should get started on this as it could go on for many paragraphs.)

-- Ian MacEachern (iwmac@sympatico.ca), February 14, 2002.

That was part one....had a cut and paste mishap. The continuation follows... :-}

Before I started still photography, I was a studio TV cameraman, and you had to compose. There was no cropping, it had to work. During that time I became interested in stills and bought a 35mm camera and the concept of cropping was just not there. I had a frame, I filled it and made it work, and I still work in the same way. I suspect that I miss some photos that others would take because they can and will redo them in the darkroom, but.... not cropping is a hard habit to break.

I keep expecting to run into you (or Richard Ilomaki)on Bloor Street whenever I'm in Toronto. Also, did you ever get your rewind knob replaced?

-- Ian MacEachern (iwmac@sympatico.ca), February 14, 2002.

Ian,

Check your email.

EOM

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 15, 2002.

Great job with the Delta 3200. What did you develop it in and for how long? Nice tonal range. Although I usually plan to print B&W negs in 5X7, 8X10, and 11X14 prints with some croping involved, I do like the uncroped image,

Regards Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@adelphia.net), February 15, 2002.