# Shelter From The Storm: McCune, Kansas



## Flower Child (Aug 15, 2009)

Hey guys this is my 99% black and white photo documentary of my hometown, McCune Kansas. My dream in photography is to be a photojournalist, so over the summer I have been trying to capture the essence of life in McCune. I am not even close to being done yet, though. I still have many ideas, but I need to wait for the right time to execute them. I would LOVE any sort of comment or critisizm. I know there are quite a few pictures to look through, but if any stick out as good or bad to you guys, I would love to know. Also, if you are feeling up to it, I would appreciate a good overall opinion of my documentary. Thank you so much!


Heres a few samples so you get an idea, but would really appreciate it if you looked at it as a whole on my website: Shelter From The Storm: McCune, Kansas

one from "The Corner Store"






Tim Davidson and Mike Parsons have a good laugh while giving each other a hard time


One from "Around Town"





Resident Randy Bevins has been known for fixing up old cars in his shop on Main Street, better known as the Calhoun Building. His most recent project was this slick '41 Chevy which he finished in the summer of 2009.



One from "Neosho River"





After withstanding so many floods throughout its days, no one would have believed that straight line winds would finally be the fate of the tree that was holding up the house.


----------



## a_spaceman (Aug 16, 2009)

great little bunch of shoots. that's the kind of america i'd like to visit one day.


----------



## BTilson (Aug 18, 2009)

I've gotta say, very very excellent work. I've been contemplating doing the same sort of documentary of my town. It reminds me a LOT of your little town. Even down to the little corner store and everything.

I really like the photographic style here. I think the black and white really ties everything in together and gives it a bit of that "small town" feel. You really have an excellent eye for capturing some good candid moments of the townsfolk.

The ONLY critique I have is that I felt that some of your shots from inside the corner store were a bit repetitive. Seemed like there were several from very similar angles and of similar subject matter. Individually, I felt they all worked with the overall theme you were going for, but as a group they seemed to kind of run together.

VERY nice work, and inspiring too! Makes me wanna get off my lazy keister and start documenting my own town!


----------



## Flower Child (Aug 19, 2009)

a_spaceman said:


> great little bunch of shoots. that's the kind of america i'd like to visit one day.



Thank you so much! That means alot to me. :thumbup:



BTilson said:


> I've gotta say, very very excellent work. I've been contemplating doing the same sort of documentary of my town. It reminds me a LOT of your little town. Even down to the little corner store and everything.
> 
> I really like the photographic style here. I think the black and white really ties everything in together and gives it a bit of that "small town" feel. You really have an excellent eye for capturing some good candid moments of the townsfolk.
> 
> ...



Wow, thank you so much for your thoughful reply! Yes, I completely agree with the repetitivness. I will definitely keep that in mind on my next excursion. If you ever decide to your own town's documentary tell me, I would love to see it!


----------



## javier (Aug 19, 2009)

BTilson said:


> I've gotta say, very very excellent work. I've been contemplating doing the same sort of documentary of my town. It reminds me a LOT of your little town. Even down to the little corner store and everything.
> 
> I really like the photographic style here. I think the black and white really ties everything in together and gives it a bit of that "small town" feel. You really have an excellent eye for capturing some good candid moments of the townsfolk.
> 
> ...



SAVED me some typing..All in you set the context very well. Your writing skills are very good...You will make a fine journalist..:thumbup:


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 19, 2009)

Very nice. Overall, good composition, good tones (I don't see a lot of nice B&W here) and a very nice exercise for you. The level of interest will vary from one person to the next. Personally, I know and love small towns. I know that nothing much goes on compared to the cities but they still are a reservoir of nice photos waiting to be shot.

A couple of photos are somewhat dark but the only one I have a problem with is the very first one: the skyline. I see something towards the middle that doesn't look like a tree but I can't tell what it is and you're mentioning both a water tower and elevator. Where are they? 

And I'm not sure what to make of the one color photo. Nothing wrong with it per say but I have to wonder why it is not in B&W.

Keep up the good work.


----------



## Yemme (Aug 19, 2009)

Wow I'm in love with the first one.  The tone is just balanced to me.  Those guys look like they're having fun and the DOF sets the mood.


----------



## Actor (Aug 19, 2009)

I like the first one _Tim and Mike... _but with the shallow DOF you've focused on the nearest guy with his head turned away from the camera.  The other guy who seems to be having a big laugh is the center of interest but he's out of focus.  Ideally you need a little more DOF to have them both in focus, which means a smaller aperture (higher f/number), which in turn means you need more light or a slower shutter.  Unless these guys were posing a slower shutter is going to give you motion blur.  If you can't get more DOF you should have focused on the other guy.

I hope that doesn't sound too harsh.  I'm trying to be constructive here.  I have a feeling that the shot was impromptu and you didn't really have time to take a lot of things into account.  With time it will become second nature.

I'm also guessing that just maybe you were using autofocus and the camera locked onto the closer subject.  With my own camera I can force the autofocus to lock on the farther subject by centering him in the frame, then pushing the shutter half way down and recomposing the shot before pushing the shutter all the way.  If your camera has a similar functionality, learn to use it.  Otherwise, turn the AF off.

The second one, of the car, is too claustrophobic for me.  You need some space in front of the car.  Remember the rule of thirds.  Vertically the picture follows the rule pretty will, the car occupies the middle third, but horizontally the car occupies all three thirds.  If the third in front of the car was empty you'd have a better shot.

The third one, of the house by the river, is perfect.

Something you might want to keep in mind is that people tend to like pictures with people in them.  This is not an absolute.  Lord knows Ansel Adams made an entire career out of shots without people, although he did shots with people too.

Take the picture of the car.  Somebody behind the wheel would add interest, as would somebody standing beside it as though it were "his baby."  Better yet, include someone looking over his shoulder at the car as he walks past, suggesting "boy, I'd like to own that."  Having him look over his shoulder after he's past it tells us he's really interested in the car, a subliminal message that would not be there if he looks at the car as he approaches it or as he passes it.


----------



## ocular (Aug 20, 2009)

Man I just love the 2nd pic, good one :thumbup:


----------



## Flower Child (Aug 20, 2009)

javier said:


> BTilson said:
> 
> 
> > I've gotta say, very very excellent work. I've been contemplating doing the same sort of documentary of my town. It reminds me a LOT of your little town. Even down to the little corner store and everything.
> ...



Much obliged, Javier. That really boosts my confidence! Thanks for taking a look



c.cloudwalker said:


> Very nice. Overall, good composition, good tones (I don't see a lot of nice B&W here) and a very nice exercise for you. The level of interest will vary from one person to the next. Personally, I know and love small towns. I know that nothing much goes on compared to the cities but they still are a reservoir of nice photos waiting to be shot.
> 
> A couple of photos are somewhat dark but the only one I have a problem with is the very first one: the skyline. I see something towards the middle that doesn't look like a tree but I can't tell what it is and you're mentioning both a water tower and elevator. Where are they?
> 
> ...



Hi cloudwalker, I really appreciate your help and comments! I agree with you that the elevator and watertower get a little lost in that first one. That runs through my mind everytime I look at it. Unfortunatly I miss judged what it would look like on such a small scale, because it was perfect in its original large size (like background on a computer size). Thank you for bringing that up, it encouraged me to do something about it! The reason I kept that photo in color was because the color was so beautiful in that one! I just couldn't bring myself to turn it black and white. 

Thank you so much for your time!




Yemme said:


> Wow I'm in love with the first one.  The tone is just balanced to me.  Those guys look like they're having fun and the DOF sets the mood.



Yeah, I'm pretty partial to that first one too. The expressions really say alot. I really appreciate your comment, Yemme.




ocular said:


> Man I just love the 2nd pic, good one :thumbup:



:mrgreen: Well thank you!


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 20, 2009)

Flower Child said:


> I agree with you that the elevator and watertower get a little lost in that first one. That runs through my mind everytime I look at it. Unfortunatly I miss judged what it would look like on such a small scale, because it was perfect in its original large size (like background on a computer size). Thank you for bringing that up, it encouraged me to do something about it!



You know, all you have to do is change your text a little bit. Maybe talk about the non-existence of a skyline.


----------



## Flower Child (Aug 20, 2009)

Hi Actor, thank you for your time you put into this detailed help! 



Actor said:


> I like the first one _Tim and Mike... _but with the shallow DOF you've focused on the nearest guy with his head turned away from the camera. The other guy who seems to be having a big laugh is the center of interest but he's out of focus. Ideally you need a little more DOF to have them both in focus, which means a smaller aperture (higher f/number), which in turn means you need more light or a slower shutter. Unless these guys were posing a slower shutter is going to give you motion blur. If you can't get more DOF you should have focused on the other guy.


 
I can see where you are coming from, but I stand by my decision of having the big guy in focus. He was my subject, I loved the alternative angle used, and I feel the guy in the background was just an added bonus to the message I was trying to convey. I WOULD HAVE wished that the big guy had his head turned a few more degrees into my direction, but thats about the best I could do with the seating arrangement. But do agree with you, however, that I should have had a better DOF. Thank you for telling me this I will use that advice in the future.



> I hope that doesn't sound too harsh. I'm trying to be constructive here. I have a feeling that the shot was impromptu and you didn't really have time to take a lot of things into account. With time it will become second nature.
> 
> I'm also guessing that just maybe you were using autofocus and the camera locked onto the closer subject. With my own camera I can force the autofocus to lock on the farther subject by centering him in the frame, then pushing the shutter half way down and recomposing the shot before pushing the shutter all the way. If your camera has a similar functionality, learn to use it. Otherwise, turn the AF off.


 
Yes, I had it in autofocus, but I manually put my focus point on the big guy on purpose as I explained above why. But I appreciate you telling me that technique, and I will try to use manual focus more next time.




> The second one, of the car, is too claustrophobic for me. You need some space in front of the car. Remember the rule of thirds. Vertically the picture follows the rule pretty will, the car occupies the middle third, but horizontally the car occupies all three thirds. If the third in front of the car was empty you'd have a better shot.
> 
> The third one, of the house by the river, is perfect.
> 
> ...


 
Great idea, thank you!


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 20, 2009)

Actor said:


> Something you might want to keep in mind is that people tend to like pictures with people in them.  This is not an absolute.  Lord knows Ansel Adams made an entire career out of shots without people, although he did shots with people too.
> 
> Take the picture of the car.  Somebody behind the wheel would add interest, as would somebody standing beside it as though it were "his baby."  Better yet, include someone looking over his shoulder at the car as he walks past, suggesting "boy, I'd like to own that."  Having him look over his shoulder after he's past it tells us he's really interested in the car, a subliminal message that would not be there if he looks at the car as he approaches it or as he passes it.



I have to strongly disagree with this idea. 1/ this is a photojournalistic project. Since when do we stage news/documentary type photos? If you want to ask the owner to pose next to his car that's another story because he is the owner and the man who fixed it and therefore part of the story but, to me, it becomes a very different image. 2/ I have hundreds of photos of old buildings and old rusted cars with absolutely no one there and no one has ever told me I should have added a person.


----------



## Actor (Aug 20, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Actor said:
> 
> 
> > Something you might want to keep in mind is that people tend to like pictures with people in them.  This is not an absolute.  Lord knows Ansel Adams made an entire career out of shots without people, although he did shots with people too.
> ...


I bet news/documentary type photos get staged more often that we suspect.  But such a thing does not have to be staged.  One can simply be aware of the dramatic potential of such images and be ready when they occur.


> 2/ I have hundreds of photos of old buildings and old rusted cars with absolutely no one there and no one has ever told me I should have added a person.


Indeed you don't "have" to add a person.  As I said, it's not an absolute.  It's merely a statement that people are predisposed to prefer pictures with people in them.  More of a marketing thing than an artistic one.


----------



## TriniPhototakeoutta (Aug 21, 2009)

#2 looks wicked. Love the contrast. Realy makes the car pop.


----------



## Flower Child (Aug 25, 2009)

Thank you good buddy. I appreciate it.


----------

