Gold mining in DR Congo

[AcadieLibre]

Just another series of photos I found.

Gold Mining in DR Congo (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/08/in_pictures_gold_mining_in_dr_congo/html/1.stm)

[tegan]

I don't think that heading off to the Congo is anyone's idea as the ideal approach to improving their photographic skills and of course these shots have basic technical weaknesses in any case. :)

Tegan

[AcadieLibre]

I don't think that heading off to the Congo is anyone's idea as the ideal approach to improving their photographic skills and of course these shots have basic technical weaknesses in any case. :)

Tegan

I am sure your credentials are vastly superior to his. Photographers Biography: http://www.richwainwright.com/biography.php

This I have to hear, please elaborate?

[tegan]

Irrespective of his credentials, in his shots I notice soft focus, incorrect depth of field, uneven lighting, and lack of even basic postprocessing to bring out a little greater detail.

Tegan

[Marko]

Almost all of these are very strong images that are excellent in composition.

I too noticed softness in most of the images and I wonder if that was due to downgrading them for the web.

Thanks for sharing the link!

[kiley9806]

my favorites were #7 & #12

thanks for sharing AL!

[tegan]

Almost all of these are very strong images that are excellent in composition.

I too noticed softness in most of the images and I wonder if that was due to downgrading them for the web.

Thanks for sharing the link!

I tend to suspect that the softness was due to the fact that they were taken rather quickly,..perhaps in order to get the shot. Getting the depth of field right requires manual focus and often a higher ISO to get the requisite aperture for the appropriate sharpness range. Trying to do all that rather instantly can be a challenge for any photographer.

I think bracketting the exposure at 3 shots per second or faster might have produced some more evenly lit possibilities.

Tegan

[tegan]

Almost all of these are very strong images that are excellent in composition.

I too noticed softness in most of the images and I wonder if that was due to downgrading them for the web.

Thanks for sharing the link!

You use the term "strong or very strong images" or "excellent in composition". I think it would be helpful to a lot of newbies to explain specifically how and in what way they are strong or excellent, so they learn something from perhaps a tip from you.

Just a suggestion. :)

Tegan

[Marko]

You use the term "strong or very strong images" or "excellent in composition". I think it would be helpful to a lot of newbies to explain specifically how and in what way they are strong or excellent, so they learn something from perhaps a tip from you.

Just a suggestion. :)

Tegan

Point taken. In this case I call the majority of these images strong because they tell a clear story and do so with emotion. I say they are excellent in composition because for the most part they follow the rule of thirds and have good "lines" and curves and framing that add interest to the photo.

Hope that helped
Marko

[tegan]

:) If you look closely, I think you will find that there are more centred subjects than those following the rule of thirds. :) My impression is that there is more random journalistic style shooting than intentional composition which is understandable given the circumstances.

Nevertheless, I find the technical issues more important and for that matter correctable before shooting or afterward in postprocessing (for the uneven exposure). Focus, depth of field, lighting/exposure...as in extreme contrast and lack of detail in some areas of photos seem rather basic, especially when they apply to more than one photo.

My precise two cents worth. :twocents:

Tegan

[Marko]

:) If you look closely, I think you will find that there are more centred subjects than those following the rule of thirds. :) My impression is that there is more random journalistic style shooting than intentional composition which is understandable given the circumstances.

Nevertheless, I find the technical issues more important and for that matter correctable before shooting or afterward in postprocessing (for the uneven exposure). Focus, depth of field, lighting/exposure...as in extreme contrast and lack of detail in some areas of photos seem rather basic, especially when they apply to more than one photo.

My precise two cents worth. :twocents:

Tegan

I find 4/13 too centered for my taste, the others I find very appealing in their compostion. Aside from the softness (that's all that bothered me - and just a bit) I still think these are good shots. Marko

[tegan]

I find 4/13 too centered for my taste, the others I find very appealing in their compostion. Aside from the softness (that's all that bothered me - and just a bit) I still think these are good shots. Marko

I find 2,3,5,8,12, and 13 with the horizon and balance between the rainbow and the people centered and 6, 10, and 11 questionable for centering. Total is 6\13 for sure and 3 perhaps too centered for a total of 9/13. Now, I am picky, but I have seen one heck of a lot of photos in several decades and chosen and edited photos for publication. I have also of course not forgotten any valid criticisms of some of my own previous work.

Lighting problems should also bother any person looking at photos because they become magnified and made worse in the publishing process. Compounding this problem, some photographers shoot in embedded Adobe or ProAdobe rgb. Printers and the web convert the photo to srgb and the result is often a darker, muddier, image. To put it differently it does not matter how great the original is, if the print version or web version is considerably poorer in quality then that is the only image that the viewer sees.

Post processing is also necessary because limited detail in a web version can easily become NO detail at all in a print version. Viveza and other new programs are making it faster and easier to correct these problems, so there is no excuse for pros NOT to follow through and make the improvements.

Pros have different levels of experience and different markets to please and some are more demanding than others. I see things from my perspective and experience, which is naturally not the same as others. Everyone needs to realize that not all amateurs have the same background and experience and neither do pros. We should learn from the differences.

Tegan