Millrace Massacre

[LightandShadow]

Another image from the annual event. Last night, at the local camera club meeting, a person who is very experienced and former participant showed 3 of her images from this event. She takes a position closer to the action and at water level, using a 600mm w/ 1.4 teleconverter. She also said she uses a much slower shutter speed (1/500 vs my 1/1250) so she almost certainly has a lower ISO. Her pictures are uncropped but all the ones she showed are tight on the people. Most of mine include a good bit of the rough water. Your thoughts about the balance between “participant portrait” and context and noise or other artifacts would be appreciated. I realize part of this is preference and part of it is equipment.

[Retired Grunt]

I’d take the top/right corner and crop it down to eliminate the bank along the top of the photo. Less water to the left of the kayaker but the (IMO) subject and the rocks behind and right of the kayaker is what makes this photo interesting.

Noise isn’t an issue for this photo and 1/1250 did freeze enough to have a sharp photo.

Great capture.

[LightandShadow]

Thanks for your feedback. I’ll wait for other feedback before posting a revision.

[Rob Wood (Admin)]

I actually think it works as it is. The strong colours of the rower show where your centre of interest lie in a contrast perfectly with the more mundane colour of the river.

However, with that said I always find that a natural closer image in terms of filling the frame with the actual subject tends to result in stronger images. In a situation like that, this might actually require a 400 or 600 telephoto so as long as you have six or seven grand to spend, you should be good. 😉

[Patrick]

Her magic is in her position at water level, using a 600mm , as Rob said and as you said it yourself after looking at her images she is using more of the frame to show the most important details , all the background , banking , trees , extra clutter is stealing some impact if it is included , she is leaving them out , some photos benefit with the extra details like landscape but action shots like this imo are about the details the viewer knows its a body of water or a fungus on a piece of dead wood but no need need to show the whole forest.

[LightandShadow]

Thanks for the feedback @patrickw-2 @admin-2 @retiredgrunt

Here’s a revision.

As to equipment, the initial post is very close to uncropped. My Canon R6 (the original) seems to provide sufficient detail for my uses even when the image has a severe crop. Few of the pictures make it to print and never more than 20 x 30. I’ll forego the $1000’s expense for now for sure.

For me, the question is how much context is too much. In my working days, my coworkers and others I was trying to guide sometimes seemed frustrated by my explanations about background issues and nuances and asked “just tell us what you want us to do.” For me, the acts without the context led folks astray. Anyway, here’s a revision that is somewhere between “subject only” and allow the viewer to fill in the blanks of the setting and showing at least some of the specific setting that the subject is dealing with.

But, all of that explanation is part of my quandary and demonstrates how I struggle with my composition.

[Patrick]

Ok honest straight talking steve ( i understand this is my own take if it was me shooting this scene ) we are all individual so i respect that first and foremost … This edit is what i think is what your first post should have been , it is strong , clear and clearly shows us the battle going on , there really is nothing left to include in terms of context. Everything is in this edit , there is nothing wrong with the wide or further back shot they give context but if the showing of your work for that day /session this edit is much stronger and tells the story in a much cleaner way.

This one looks great

[LightandShadow]

I agree. There is enough context to make this other than a portrait.

[Retired Grunt]

Yeah, there are times to isolate a subject in the environment they are specifically in. The photo, well… the subject now slaps the viewer right in the face with the impact of the moment

 

[LightandShadow]

Or maybe something like this…

[Retired Grunt]

Hooah, you’re experiencing (in) the scene with the kayaker.

[Patrick]

I also do it , add too much sometimes and it is nearly always after i hit share i notice i maybe could have left this detail out or that edge off the frame is unbalancing something else.

Seriously though one good thing we can all take away from this and it is something we all learned when starting out , anything with EYES

Eye-Level , The Neutral Connector

This angle mirrors how we interact with others in daily life. It creates a sense of equality, relatability, and intimacy. By being on the same plane, you invite the viewer into the subject’s world as a peer rather than an observer

Why It Works , It allows for direct eye contact, which is the most effective way to foster an emotional bond.

High-Angle , The Power Shift Down

Shooting from above makes the subject appear smaller, weaker, or more vulnerable. It can evoke feelings of protectiveness or, conversely, superiority in the viewer , Use this to emphasize a subject’s insignificance or to show them overwhelmed by their environment.

Technical Note , In portraiture, a slight high angle is often used to define jawlines and make eyes appear larger, but an extreme angle can look unnatural or diminishing

Low-Angle, The Power Shift Up

Looking up at a subject makes them appear larger, more dominant, and powerful. It triggers an instinctive response of awe, respect, or even threat.

This is the classic “hero” or “villain” shot, used to elevate importance and authority.

Visual Impact , It increases the perceived height of the subject and can make a simple scene feel more epic or dramatic.

Getting low for eye-level shots often requires physical effort—like lying on the ground but the resulting emotional “hook” is what distinguishes a professional image from a generic snapshot.

 

[LightandShadow]

Thanks for all that. Good general advice. However, it doesn’t deal with the actual conditions of the shoot. For example, there’s very little place to stand that would put me at eye level with the participants. There is one place but it is taken by another photographer and requires a bit more scrambling over wet boulders than I feel comfortable with.  When I have been there at non-events for landscape images, I don’t think the angle is optimal to see the action I’m generally after. The boardwalk position provides an elevated position that is far enough to reduce the horizontal angle (not looking down on participants until they get close to “home”) and makes elimination of background easier, even though I didn’t do it in the initial posting.

Good advice to put into the mix of decisions, even when they might be rejected given the compromises of the situation. But, if you don’t know this, then they can’t be considered and worked into the setup.

[Dahlia Ambrose]

This version works great Steve, bringing all the attention to your subject and the action in the scene. Cropping off the background is a great choice and love this second version of the photo 🙂

[Author]

Posts