Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: LesPalenik on December 30, 2016, 10:43:07 am
-
Great idea, Ignacio, and very nicely processed.
I like best the second last image, just the blue iceberg appearing in the hole.
Personally, I don't think that adding the green aurora lights helps this image. If anything, it lessens the impact of the blue ice block.
But you could use the hole image to put around something else using complementary colors, i.e. an orange pumpkin or a giraffe sliding on the ice.
-
Ignacio,
Another great image and a wonderful explanation of the general process and your thoughts along the way. I always know I'll enjoy an article from you.
Thanks for contributing.
Brad Smith
-
While I'm generally not a fan of composites (especially when it's obvious and the photographer passes it off as no being a composite) but I must say this one is exceedingly cool and deserves the award for sure!
-
I enjoy end-of-year humour!
However, I think Les points to something really important when it comes to image processing: when one goes beyond the believable, one loses the game. Especially today, where ever fewer people believe everything their eyes show them. And ultimately, what's the point? Perhaps it might be the desire to sell prints to Philistines - in which case, go for it, serves 'em right! - but as for one's own self-respect... ?
I suppose it's a phase every PS (or whatever) learner will want to travel, just to se if he/she can do it (my own little virgin's journey involved cloning myself a fine head of hair) but it soon grows stale and absurd (not the hair, that never grew back). At least, it did become boring for me, and I do as little manipulation as I think lets me finish up with the shot I hoped I had caught. Perhaps it's just an old film man's mindset.
;-)
Rob C
-
I like the idea - but I didn't get why the iceberg should be as blue as some odd cocktail..
-
I don't care for landscape composites but this is very well done. The blue, however, is a bit extreme! I agree, adding the aurora would be overkill !!
-
I like the idea - but I didn't get why the iceberg should be as blue as some odd cocktail..
Iceberg blues are always problematic. The depth and intensity are hard to reproduce.
Do you go for something "believable", or go for the shock you experienced when you saw the original colour?
David
-
I love the concept but find the final image to be a step too far in the overall processing. I much prefer the second to last image, which better represents "reality". Would that have been a winning image though? Just because we have the tools available doesn't mean we should. :)
-
I did like the composite photograph. I'm sure a considerable amount of work went into the creation of your landscape. Landscape? I believe more photographers have worked with their images to the point that they become unrealistic, saturation, color, etc. than photographers that have not. I'm guilty for sure. Again, I liked your finished project and don't have a problem with manipulation, to a point.
If I am selling my work, I would label it as a composite, maybe. However, for a competition I can't imagine entering this as a landscape. Where is this imaginary landscape? I look at this photograph and want to go there, but I cannot. It doesn't exist. I might as well put together fragments of everything I shot that was beautiful, put it together, call it a landscape and enter it in contests. I would never be cold or tired again. I wouldn't have a need to even go outside again. It wouldn't matter, I won. There has to be more to this than winning. The experience and accomplishment of producing a great photograph needs to be there for me. If I enter my photographs and are judged against this one I will lose every time. Made up nature is always better than real nature, there are no flaws.
Contests such as the APPA may want to start having a category called composite.
I don't want to start a long talk about manipulation. Been there and done that. People that view our photographs are drawn to the locations and admire the beauty. It is hard enough explaining to them how my photographs are sharper, brighter and more colorful than the photographs they took with their Iphone. They already doubt that anything we do is real. We can at least be honest enough to let them know when their not real. Again, really liked the photograph.
-
...
If I am selling my work, I would label it as a composite, maybe. However, for a competition I can't imagine entering this as a landscape. Where is this imaginary landscape? I look at this photograph and want to go there, but I cannot. It doesn't exist. I might as well put together fragments of everything I shot that was beautiful, put it together, call it a landscape and enter it in contests.
...
This is a rather extreme example as it could exist but if you went there, it wouldn't exist because over time, ice will change (if not just melt/disappear.)
For example, imagine that the piece of ice with the hole in it was transported to the other location without impacting its integrity. Now the shot can be made but if you go there, it won't exist because the ice is gone. And that's not to forget the clouds.
-
I like it and I think non-photographers would like it, but I also think that photographers who believe that we should only represent reality, even though that reality is often based on their own individual definition of what reality is and their acceptable tweaking of reality, will probably not like it. But this is their choice and we should all be OK with that, as this is one of the many differences that makes this whole 'photography' thing so rich and rewarding to so many people and in so many ways.
I often wonder if showing your work on sites such as this through the critique section, is a really valid way of ascertaining the quality of your work, as we photographers tend to favour work that is photographically competent (sharp, well exposed, well framed and compositionally pleasing etc), whereas Joe public just make up their minds on what they like through nothing more than a gut feeling. So a shot shown on here that may receive many positive critiques from fellow photographers, may have little impact on the general public and visa versa.
So my advice is to just do what floats your boat and what you want to do with photography, and if that pleases other photographers and non-photographers alike, then all well and good, but don't create work just to please others, do it primarily to please you, but with one small caveat, never dismiss advice from your fellow photographers out of hand just because you don't like it, as sometimes that critique that hurts deep down, but in the long run makes you change what you are doing for the better, is the best critique you will ever receive.
Dave
-
I often wonder if showing your work on sites such as this through the critique section, is a really valid way of ascertaining the quality of your work, as we photographers tend to favour work that is photographically competent (sharp, well exposed, well framed and compositionally pleasing etc), whereas Joe public just make up their minds on what they like through nothing more than a gut feeling. So a shot shown on here that may receive many positive critiques from fellow photographers, may have little impact on the general public and visa versa.
Dave
I think that for neophytes in particular, posting pictures here is not a brilliant idea.
It's terribly easy for folks without much history to think others know better than they do, which is often the case, but hardly always. Listening to anyone else discuss aesthetics quickly shows up the failure to find a common standard: it's either herd mentality or some way out choice from another galaxie not so near us.
For learners, I still believe the answer is to study lots of other people's work, and find what pleases; that done, one gets a sense of self, oddly enough, from which to go onwards to wherever the muse leads.
The above used to be difficult and expensive before the Internet: one had to buy magazines and books. Today, you get all the images you could ever want to look at for nothing more than the trouble of consulting Google.
All another person can teach you is how to do the mechanics. It was ever so.
But I think that over-processing in digital is somewhat pointless unless for some specific commercial purpose, in which case, do what has to be done. As long as nobody tells you it's real if you ask, and it's not, who cares?
Rob
-
Both Dave and Rob have raised some interesting points that deserve collective consideration.
However, the suggestion that "neophytes" (howsoever defined) should probably refrain from posting on this site I cannot agree with.
I thoroughly agree with Rob that (all?) photographers can benefit from studying the work of others.
One of the many great benefits of this site is the volume and diversity of work that is actually posted on this site.
Most of the work posted is absolutely top drawer but there is a spread of quality.
The fact that all the work posted does not belong in a coffee-table book does not disqualify that work from being posted on this site.
Rather than discourage people from posting images, whatever their level of expertise, we should rather encourage them to post.
Of course just posting an image is not particularly helpful if one does not receive constructive feedback.
All of us, me included, are sometimes lazy in what we post in response.
Too often we might indicate that we like or dislike an image without specifying why.
An experienced photographer may be well aware of the strengths or weaknesses of an image but for those who are in a more formative stage of their photographic journey it may not be so obvious.
It is true that I do sometimes give a minimal (but very positive) response to an image that I like, but, I made a resolution a while back to try and give an evaluation of why I like the image.
Not only is this a helpful discipline for me but hopefully helpful for the OP, and, not least a less experienced photographer who, while they also might like it, may be unsure of why the image works.
I have made what I consider an even more important resolution never to negatively criticise a posted image unless I can give a constructive reason or reasons why. I do not want to discourage anyones artistic endeavour by just canning their work.
If I don't like the image but cannot provide helpful constructive input as to why, I don't post a comment.
This forum is frequented by many many accomplished (perhaps even famous) photographers but it should not be elitist.
I often think of this site, and the forum in particular, as a kind of university - a place of learning.
And it is much more than just learning about the difference between a sensel and a pixel, the merits and demerits of CCD vs CMOS sensors, and, what in thunder a circle of confusion is. It is very much much about learning about the artistic and aesthetic in photography and developing one's own style. If you have a technical bent it is easy to study and understand the similarities and differences between CMOS and CCD sensors in isolation but the moment art and aesthetics enters the picture (pun intended) then, almost by definition, collective input is required.
Surely, all of us, collectively, have a responsibility to support and encourage others in the very endeavour in which we ourselves are engaged?
my $0.02 worth
Tony Jay
-
"However, the suggestion that "neophytes" (howsoever defined) should probably refrain from posting on this site I cannot agree with."
Tony Jay.
.........................
Just to make it clear: I was referring to the posting of newbies images, not of written matter, which is something quite else, so I just want to make that clear in this context which, as you wrote earlier, refers to the 'critique section'.
From my own perspective, and which pretty much all my post was about, a newbie getting feedback on his photographs amounts to brainwashing by the person providing the comments; that person can only, if honest, give opinion based on his likes or dislikes. Of course, reducing the rôle of 'mentor' to this level doesn't play nicely in the ears of those making a business out of doing this very thing; as I was in my pro days, selling pictures of beautiful ladies in order to sell beer or scotch or rent out trucks, road diggers and cranes isn't an honest, objective view on anything: it's a hard sell to make money.
For example, I post this shot below. What in hell can any LuLa reader or armchair 'visual expert' say about it that is going to make an iota of difference to me? I've had a successful career in pro photography already and what I do now is totally for myself, which is exactly what any amateur is doing for himself, too. The difference is that it took me many years to get back into amateur shoes, and many more to find a pair that I felt fitted me, which is something the permanent amateur never has to do: he's already wearing them.
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/d-2979_orig.jpg)
The typical LuLa critique provider is going to say he like/dislikes it, and his reasons are going to be about lost shadow detail, indistinct subject matter etc. etc. all of which is bullshit: the image, when I felt compelled to take it, spoke to me of lost love, of a sophisiticated, well-educated and extremely capable woman I'd met when she was just a girl of fifteen, and all sorts of things a third person will never know unless I choose to tell that person. So much the value of critique. Hence the inclusion of Without Prejudice. Equipment? All obsolete or at the kindest, obsolescent, neither bits available new anymore.
Photography, amateur, is about self. What you photograph is what you are. Nobody else can be you on your behalf; you have to do it for yourself. That's why I repeat: all anybody can teach you, without harming you, is mechanics and, with luck, maybe provide a pleasant guided tour holiday somewhere. And there's nothing in the world wrong with that, as long as the sell is honest. Personally, I wouldn't take such a thing as a gift. Neither would I take one of those group 'model shoots' as a gift. I can think of no photographic horror worse than having to do it in a herd.
That's why I advocate reading and browsing the Internet to find a genre that speaks to you more loudly and insistently than any other. When, and if you do, you've found your niche; then, just go for it. Your eye will already have formed or recognized itself at that point, so all you need, if you have not got it yet, is some mechanical advice. In that way, free from opinion from people, only the images you see will speak and influence you and help you find yourself. And that's pretty much all there is to photography
Rob C
-
Rob,
I was most definitely referring to the posting of images and not to textual posts.
And, I stand by what I said that newbies should not be discouraged from posting images.
With respect to what you may think about others critiquing your images is neither here nor there as far as my argument goes.
I could quote my last post but suffice to say I would expect you to know what the strengths and weaknesses are of that image you posted.
You may believe that photography is a pursuit that completely isolates you, "all about self" as you say but why then would anyone ever post any images ever if that is the case.
I believe that you are entitled to your opinion but you are painting others with the same brush you are applying to yourself, and, I sincerely doubt that everyone else agrees with you on this issue.
I agree that shooting images can sometimes be a solitary exercise and post-processing may also be something done alone but nearly everyone I know ultimately shoots for an audience that is bigger than just themselves.
If anyone, pro or amateur, old hand or newbie wants to share their images with an audience, particularly on a site like this that does, apparently, encourage images to be posted, I ask again, why should anyone try to dissuade them?
As far as the feedback goes, I doubt anyone is "brainwashed" by anything anyone posts. One does not need to be the director of a major art gallery or museum to comment constructively and honestly on an image.
Again, on this site, plenty of feedback and critiquing of images goes on in other sub-forums and not just in the "critique" section.
And frankly I don't think that the choice of sub-forum made by individuals posting images currently matches the original intent of the original sub-forum setup.
And I do not see it as a particular issue either.
As for the quality of the feedback I made a few comments about that and offered some possible ways to remedy the situation.
I do not see your reply negating any of the central thrusts of my first post.
As for you posting images.
Why bother if no one else's opinions count?
I personally think that you should but based on your rant I cannot see why you do.
Tony Jay
-
Tony,
Rant? If you so desire. But I don't think it is at all; it simply flies in the face of your interests.
I accept that my opinion is neither here nor there, insofar as your opinion is concerned. Which is also fine, but ain't gonna stop me stating mine, trust me on that.
You ask why anyone should discourage newbies posting pictures in a site such as this: I have already stated why a couple of times within this very thread. Why would anyone post images? That's not for me - nor for you - to decide or even, possibly to know: that's the business of the posters concerned. All that I do in this thread is to warn them about the dangers that lurk in listening to the remarks/advice of self-styled or even assumed 'experts' who are, by and large, IMO, anything but.
Now, as for my posting images, and why I do so. Simply this: I have not a whole heap much else to do these days; I enjoy the company of some few posters (they are well aware of who they are) and like to contribute to some of the threads one or two have started. That's not for 'advice', which none of us feels silly or cheeky enough to proffer, but for the fun and pleasure of keeping communications open with those persons. There is enough mutual respect to ride well above that advisory crap.
Thing is, most of us who do stay in touch are not lovers of traditional landcape, by and large, which is why it's nice that LuLa's management is not wearing tunnel vision glasses. Remove the other genres from it, and I think it would shrink into just another little chat show. I think you will see that borne out by the fact that very few - if any - of the guys who post regularly in the 'pro' section, as it pretty much seems to be, are to be found in the 'critiques' sections at all. Do you want to piss them off too by tying the site to landscape? Not that I say that you do, of course, but the dangers would be pretty obvious, I'd imagine.
Rob C
-
I find the idea behind the image great, and the learning that comes with the processing steps to achieve the visualization are good. Personally, I don't like the "greyish band" around the image, it makes it a bit flat; especially given the rich blue tones in the rest of the ice.
As for landscape - art - composites, I leave that discussion to all the knowledgeable folks that inhabit LuLa:)
-
Actually Rob, my post was NOT really to get you to justify your reasons for posting images.
For the right reasons I don't care (and actually , as stated I DO think that you should, in fact, post images).
The mistake that you made was to extrapolate your situation to everyone else, to generalise your view on the world and apply it to others.
YOUR motive for posting images is valid but it does not necessarily match the reasons why others post images.
Your views about how qualified others are to judge images, is to put it bluntly, patronising.
In addition your "brainwashing" comment also demeans the intelligence of those who do post images - in other words they are too stupid to understand a poor analysed critique.
Based on your views, no art gallery in the world should allow public access - the masses are clearly not qualified to view what they clearly cannot understand!
When I post an image I understand that those viewing it, and potentially commenting on it, will represent a spread of expertise and experience as both photographers and judges of the merits of photographic images. I would need to carefully analyse their comments - some would ultimately be valid and others not. Either way, I would encourage the comments because the whole process is a learning one. How does one become a better photographer, and, how does one become a better critic - simple, lots of practice.
That image that you posted was just a self-fulfilling prophecy. If one posts an image that is completely uninterpretable without an extensive explanation about the image and why it was taken, and that explanation is not given, one should not be surprised if comments and analysis are offered that are completely irrelevant and asinine. In the case of the image that you posted, with the explanation, one can now view this image on an emotional level, and ask the question, "Does this image succeed in conveying the emotion that Rob was feeling when he made this image?" Now, because one is asking better questions about the image, perhaps, just perhaps, one can offer a better analysis of whether that image succeeds at this level.
As an aside, I am very much in favour of genres other than landscape and wildlife being represented on this site and forum. I want to see abstract images, architectural and commercial shots, portraits and street photography. For me, this gives me ideas that I can incorporate into what I do. Sometimes the application is merely technical, but more often these days I am impressed by those photographers whose work can elicit an emotional response from me and why the image succeeds at that level.
Maybe you don't care, but I do take the time to view your images. I don't post comments generally (because of your wishes in this regard.) However, it does not stop me forming opinions on the technical, aesthetic, and artistic merits of that work. Sometimes, if an explanation is not provided, it may be impossible to "correctly" judge that image, but still, you may be surprised occasionally by what the neophyte actually does see in those shots!
Tony Jay
-
Photography is an artistic medium. Art is self-expression. The moment we think photographs MUST represent reality is the moment we've deluded ourselves. While some photographers make straight photographs, there is no rule that photography must replicate reality. There never has been and never should be.
If someone chooses to use the medium in way different from an image straight from a camera, either through "straight" post-processing or total change to images including composites, then so be it. That's what art is all about. If it's different than the way you perceive the world – that's a good thing. We need our minds stretched periodically. It's not illegal; it's not immoral; it's healthy. If you don't like it, that's fine too. But don't denigrate it because it doesn't fit your notion of what photography is.
No one expects painters to paint reality. There is also a healthy mixed media movement. What the photographer is showing is a brilliant example of photographic compositing. Congratulations on the award, for your creativity and vision.
Should it be labelled as a composite? Yes, that would be appropriate although one might then ask, "How far does one go in post-processing before it must be 'labelled' as something other than 'photography' in the traditional sense (however that may be defined)."
Definitely food for thought and discussion.
-
Photography is an artistic medium. Art is self-expression. The moment we think photographs MUST represent reality is the moment we've deluded ourselves. While some photographers make straight photographs, there is no rule that photography must replicate reality. There never has been and never should be.
If someone chooses to use the medium in way different from an image straight from a camera, either through "straight" post-processing or total change to images including composites, then so be it. That's what art is all about. If it's different than the way you perceive the world – that's a good thing. We need our minds stretched periodically. It's not illegal; it's not immoral; it's healthy. If you don't like it, that's fine too. But don't denigrate it because it doesn't fit your notion of what photography is.
No one expects painters to paint reality. There is also a healthy mixed media movement. What the photographer is showing is a brilliant example of photographic compositing. Congratulations on the award, for your creativity and vision.
Should it be labelled as a composite? Yes, that would be appropriate although one might then ask, "How far does one go in post-processing before it must be 'labelled' as something other than 'photography' in the traditional sense (however that may be defined)."
Definitely food for thought and discussion.
I think your thoughts represent a very sensible position Terry.
There is a question that needs to be answered about honesty and integrity.
I personally think that if you are an individual selling your work and all your work is composites, additions and subtractions, etc and it is well known that this is what you do then there isn't an issue.
No-one will feel cheated to discover that this latest image is also a composite.
However, if you have built your reputation and client base on the notion of a somewhat more documentary approach where you could tell a potential customer: "If you had been there with me looking over my shoulder you will recognise what you see in this image", and you have created a composite image and are now trying to pass it off as a representation of reality (I agree with your comments about reality and photography BTW) then I regard that as dishonest.
So, it is all about the expectations of the audience cum customer.
Tony Jay
-
Tony, you simply don't read. You represent my comments in the same misread manner all the time in this debate, and appear:
1. unable to grasp the difference, or;
2. imagine that persistent misrepresentation will convince anyone left reading this of your altruistic, proletarian love and huge respect for the photographic opinion of someone who, by admission through asking, knows little about the medium.
It's the other side of Alice's mirror. I shall remain on this one.
Rob C
-
I grasp plenty!!
I grasp that you obviously had no respect for the people who actually gave you a living once!
The very people that you now dismiss as photographic and artistic savages actually paid your salary.
It was not the art directors and magazine editors etc etc because they could only use what the public wanted.
No matter how good they thought an image was it was irrelevant if it meant that joe public did not buy the publication!
So, the same proletariat (your term, not mine), that you so abusively dismiss, are the people who ultimately judged your work and decided whether you were worth a dime or not!
You may not want to believe it but I actually have a very good grasp of English, whether that be the more formal version or the more vernacular kind, so I don't think I have misunderstood you at all.
-
I think that for neophytes in particular, posting pictures here is not a brilliant idea.
It's terribly easy for folks without much history to think others know better than they do, which is often the case, but hardly always. Listening to anyone else discuss aesthetics quickly shows up the failure to find a common standard: it's either herd mentality or some way out choice from another galaxie not so near us.
For learners, I still believe the answer is to study lots of other people's work, and find what pleases; that done, one gets a sense of self, oddly enough, from which to go onwards to wherever the muse leads.
The above used to be difficult and expensive before the Internet: one had to buy magazines and books. Today, you get all the images you could ever want to look at for nothing more than the trouble of consulting Google.
All another person can teach you is how to do the mechanics. It was ever so.
But I think that over-processing in digital is somewhat pointless unless for some specific commercial purpose, in which case, do what has to be done. As long as nobody tells you it's real if you ask, and it's not, who cares?
Rob
Agree with this 100%.
-
I find the idea behind the image great, and the learning that comes with the processing steps to achieve the visualization are good. Personally, I don't like the "greyish band" around the image, it makes it a bit flat; especially given the rich blue tones in the rest of the ice.
Looking again at the original picture, I agree with Paulo that the greyish band / border doesn't help. Maybe the image could be cropped tighter or the gray area could be changed to the similar blue as the inner walls of the ice block.
-
Agree with this 100%.
Do you really agree with all that Rob has said Sharon?
If you do your POV flies in the face of every known precept of education and learning.
One does not learn well in a vacuum whether this be a technical skill or artistic expression.
I agree with Rob that spending plenty of time looking at other peoples images is a good idea.
Deciding whether they work or not and why they work is all good.
I totally disagree with the sweeping statement that all that anyone can be taught is the "mechanics".
It was never ever so!
Every endeavour that is worthwhile has a "mechanical" component to it, however, it quickly elevates to the philosophical and artistic level. This is true of fine art and it is true with mathematics and it is true with medicine and law. And it is true for every other worthwhile endeavour.
Almost nobody will reach the pinnacle of any of these endeavours on their own.
Even if they are exceptionally naturally talented it just does not happen that way.
Even if they claim that they did it on their own they are not telling the truth.
It is true that one cannot make an artist out of someone who has no aptitude for art.
It is also true that it is difficult (impossible?) to achieve any level of real expertise in any endeavour that one does not also have a passion for.
However, it is most decidedly false to extrapolate from the above two statements that if one has talent and passion for a particular thing then one can just be left to get on with it once the "mechanics" have been taught.
I will say it again: it was never ever so!
Photography is a visual medium, and as such, by definition, requires an audience.
Photography, unlike the visual arts of the past where the audience of a particular work may have been extremely small and exclusive, is a mass medium.
Both Dave and Rob have expressed doubts about how constructive it is having "unqualified" individuals judging one's work, especially it seems, if one is apparently in a formative stage with one's photography.
The suggestion is not to post on LuLa because the comments and critiques may not always be helpful.
Dave seems particularly concerned that individuals may feel that they have to produce and post only work that elicits a positive response from others on the forum.
However there are lots of problems with this.
Firstly, we live in the real world.
I get unconstructive input every day of my life just trying to live day-to-day!
If I cannot deal with someone posting a less that helpful comment about an image I post then NOT posting an image is unlikely to solve anything.
It is false premise that one can protect anyone in this way.
Also, because photography needs an audience, if someone does not post images on LuLa they will be seen elsewhere.
What if that audience is even less constructive?
The suggestion is that, particularly as an amateur, one should shoot for oneself.
The idea is to pursue those genres and ideas that interest one - in other words go after your passions.
Not bad advice within a certain context.
However, when this translates into a prescriptive "suggestion" that one should not post images on LuLa because you may be so influenced by the feedback that you abandon your interests and passions and instead pursue a quest merely to please others then the whole theory falls apart.
As far as I am concerned if this happens to you then the issue is not LuLa, it is not whatever comments have been posted, the problem is internal to the individual concerned surely.
Not posting solves nothing apart from possibly allowing someone to indulge in a degree of self-delusion.
If you are passionate about something yet can be easily swayed then then the natural question to be posed is: how passionate are you really if you are so easily swayed.
And, as previously stated, if someone is so bent on external reassurance then they will seek it out anyway.
Furthermore, how does one define a neophyte?
What are the criteria?
Who qualifies as a non-neophyte?
Who is qualified to give constructive input and critique to an image and who is not?
Who decides who is who?
And, finally, who enforces this whole apartheid-like system?
Frankly, the whole suggestion that limits should be placed on who posts what is philosophically misplaced and practically unworkable (This statement should be interpreted within the limits of the agreement one made with LuLa when one became a member of the forum in the first place.)
The apparent motive to protect the novice from himself is completely unhelpful and almost certainly counterproductive.
-
I have found that most internet critique is worthless and often harmful. Lots of advice to conform to that group's aesthetic, which is often rather limited. Some of the best photography I've seen is technically flawed but the subject so interesting, it moves you and fascinates you. Why subject that pure intent to a forum which will tell you to crop a third of the sky, etc.?
That's my opinion, Tony, and you can post another 1,000 word post and it will still be my opinion.
-
I have found that most internet critique is worthless and often harmful. Lots of advice to conform to that group's aesthetic, which is often rather limited. Some of the best photography I've seen is technically flawed but the subject so interesting, it moves you and fascinates you. Why subject that pure intent to a forum which will tell you to crop a third of the sky, etc.?
That's my opinion, Tony, and you can post another 1,000 word post and it will still be my opinion.
Why limit your thoughts to merely critiquing images then?
As far as I am concerned there is lot more harmful things written every day on forums - just like this one - that have nothing to do with the critique of images.
Yet, here you are...
-
When I post an image I understand that those viewing it, and potentially commenting on it, will represent a spread of expertise and experience as both photographers and judges of the merits of photographic images. I would need to carefully analyse their comments - some would ultimately be valid and others not. Either way, I would encourage the comments because the whole process is a learning one. How does one become a better photographer, and, how does one become a better critic - simple, lots of practice.
That image that you posted was just a self-fulfilling prophecy. If one posts an image that is completely uninterpretable without an extensive explanation about the image and why it was taken, and that explanation is not given, one should not be surprised if comments and analysis are offered that are completely irrelevant and asinine. In the case of the image that you posted, with the explanation, one can now view this image on an emotional level, and ask the question, "Does this image succeed in conveying the emotion that Rob was feeling when he made this image?" Now, because one is asking better questions about the image, perhaps, just perhaps, one can offer a better analysis of whether that image succeeds at this level.
Tony Jay
I agree with your view on this issue, Tony. You've become unusually vocal on the forum recently. ;)
Expanding on the cliche,'Beauty is in the mind of the beholder', I would add that all the emotional appeal and meaning of any photograph is in the mind of the beholder, whether the beholder is part of an audience or simply the person who took the shot.
I think it is reasonable to presume that any photograph can appeal to someone, with the exception, perhaps, of a photo which is presented by the photographer as an example of an image which is boring and meaningless. However, even then, there might be someone in an audience who disagrees and claims he finds the image has some sort of emotional appeal, whether abstract or symbolic.
Even the most mundane, poorly processed, out-of focus snapshot with blown highlights and blocked shadows, might have a significant emotional appeal to the person who took the shot because of the personal associations with the subject. (Not that I'm implying that Rob's recent photos, as an amateur, are that bad, of course. ;) )
-
I agree with your view on this issue, Tony. You've become unusually vocal on the forum recently. ;)
Expanding on the cliche,'Beauty is in the mind of the beholder', I would add that all the emotional appeal and meaning of any photograph is in the mind of the beholder, whether the beholder is part of an audience or simply the person who took the shot.
I think it is reasonable to presume that any photograph can appeal to someone, with the exception, perhaps, of a photo which is presented by the photographer as an example of an image which is boring and meaningless. However, even then, there might be someone in an audience who disagrees and claims he finds the image has some sort of emotional appeal, whether abstract or symbolic.
Even the most mundane, poorly processed, out-of focus snapshot with blown highlights and blocked shadows, might have a significant emotional appeal to the person who took the shot because of the personal associations with the subject. (Not that I'm implying that Rob's recent photos, as an amateur, are that bad, of course. ;) )
Hi Ray,
Well the converse is actually the reason.
I was practically inactive on the forum through most of 2016.
2016 was a less that stellar year for me.
On many levels I was struggling to keep my head above water and the day-to-day stress I was experiencing just meant that photography, and anything associated with it, just became an impossible mountain to climb.
2016 was a much worse year for me than 2001 when I lost both my parents back in South Africa.
My Dad was murdered and my mom died from ill-health a few months after that.
Yet 2016 was much worse for me.
I am actually feeling a better about things - hence my increased activity.
At least I feel I can venture an opinion about things.
I have also begun shooting again - something almost completely lacking through most of 2016.
Photography has always been a great stress reliever for me but if I am too stressed then the creativity just evaporates from me like a drop of water in a hot desert, and then trying to shoot actually adds to the stress, because, although I can still press the shutter, I am just not "seeing" anything.
In that situation the results are beyond mediocre and that does nothing positive for my state of mind.
As far as the forum went, I did log in and read quite a lot - just didn't feel up to participating.
The world, photographically speaking, is continuing to barrel along at a high pace - it seems the only constant is change!
Some of what I have posted on deals with, what I feel, are the inevitable consequences of the trajectory of the last few years.
Really though, I do still get great joy out of viewing the work of others on the forum - that didn't stop during last year - but now I at least feel that I might be able to participate constructively if I do choose to comment on an image.
This site, and the forum, to me, remains an important resource for anyone interested in photography.
It is not just a refuge for landscape photographers and I, for one, am profoundly grateful that people post images representing all sorts of diverse genres.
This site is almost unique across the web (I don't actually know of another site anywhere like it, but who knows...) and what it represents needs to be maintained, expanded, and protected.
The best way is to participate!
And so, my response to what I perceive to be suggestions that arbitrarily limit participation on this forum is most definitely to vigorously question what I think is a highly flawed POV, not least because it seriously harms the business case underpinning this site.
Tony Jay
-
Why limit your thoughts to merely critiquing images then?
As far as I am concerned there is lot more harmful things written every day on forums - just like this one - that have nothing to do with the critique of images.
Yet, here you are...
That makes no sense. Can we not discuss a specific thing like critiquing photos? Why should how I feel about image critique on Internet forums have to include every word posted on this forum? You are saying that there is no value to context. That's just silly.
-
That makes no sense. Can we not discuss a specific thing like critiquing photos? Why should how I feel about image critique on Internet forums have to include every word posted on this forum? You are saying that there is no value to context. That's just silly.
I agree totally that context is important.
How harmful exactly is a worthless critique of an image?
How dangerous is a suggestion to crop half of a sky?
Surely the worst that can happen is one gives the suggestion a try and then one finds it doesn't work.
Perhaps it might work.
Doing whatever edit may change the feel and emotion of an image. While it could be a good or a bad thing, it could also just be different.
One might perhaps learn something.
If it does not work post the reasons why.
Maybe the individual who gave the suggestion refuses to accept it, but maybe they do and then they can also learn something.
All the above is predicated on an assumption - that everyone uses a bit of common-sense (not as common as we all would wish for but then again the world is not a perfect place).
If someone posting images is really going to be harmed by a bit of wayward advice, or, dare I say it, even an attempt at bullying over the web (I certainly do not condone bullying), then NOT posting images will not protect them either.
If they really are that gullible or sensitive, as the case may be (and I am referring to an adult here), then any number of other types of life's interactions are certainly going to harm them.
No need to single out photographic fora.
It has always been a case of "buyer beware" and nothing has changed.
There are several sub-fora on LuLa where images are posted and comments, observations, and critiques are offered.
There is rather a large spread of individuals who post images and also comment.
Yes, some are newbies to photography and some, from what I can tell, are world-renowned award-winning photographers, and everything in-between.
And not everyone gets it right all the time, but who cares.
Also I cannot recollect personally any comment or critique of an image that I have ever read on this forum that was maliciously inspired.
Unhelpful, plain wrong sometimes, Yes, plenty of those.
But again, also plenty of very helpful comments and critiques and lots of food for thought.
Like yourself I am very interested in the emotional impact of an image.
I tend to look at abstract themes that may be suggested by the image,
If I can I limit my critique to how well the image succeeds at an emotional level.
Sometimes though, technicalities of focus, composition, colour and other things intrude into the image to the point where the abstractions that the image might otherwise be communicating are lost or muddled.
I will make a comment about that if that is the case.
If I don't think an image works but am struggling to put my finger on what I think the problem might be then I don't post a comment.
When I post a comment critiquing an image I try to avoid using phraseology that suggests that I am an AUTHORITY or I AM RIGHT.
Like everyone else I don't always "get" what is going on.
I try , in fact, to be as friendly and supportive as I can be when commenting on the work of others and hopefully I haven't fallen short too many times in trying to maintain the standards outlined above.
I am very cognizant of the fact that for some people a lot of courage is required to post an image, anywhere, never mind to this particular forum, and I don't actually wish to be responsible for ensuring that they never attempt to post an image again.
Perhaps, collectively (go back and read my first post again) we do need to do a better job on this forum than is currrently the case.
But, that is a VERY different discussion to one dealing with suggestions that certain categories of individuals should be limited or discouraged from posting images on this forum particularly if that categorization is based on one's apparent ability or reputation as a photographer.
-
I agree totally that context is important.
How harmful exactly is a worthless critique of an image?
How dangerous is a suggestion to crop half of a sky?
After a while in photography forums, what you see is a bunch of photographs that look like they were taken by the same person. Thats the harm of it.
I believe in getting critiques- but rarely ask for it from an Internet forum. The best critiques I get are from watching a client go through our portfolio. When they stop and tell you about a photograph as if you were unfamiliar with it - you know you have something with that shot.
-
After a while in photography forums, what you see is a bunch of photographs that look like they were taken by the same person. Thats the harm of it.
I believe in getting critiques- but rarely ask for it from an Internet forum. The best critiques I get are from watching a client go through our portfolio. When they stop and tell you about a photograph as if you were unfamiliar with it - you know you have something with that shot.
With regard to the first point I see images, on this site anyway, that cover so many different genres often posted by individuals who do have a particular style, and probably a highly individualistic streak anyway, that that is rarely an issue.
As for the second point that is fine for you, but your situation is NOT generalisable. This is particularly the case since the whole debate came about suggesting that newbies should not post images. Not too many of them have clients to do their critiques, do they?
-
I have found that most internet critique is worthless and often harmful. Lots of advice to conform to that group's aesthetic, which is often rather limited. Some of the best photography I've seen is technically flawed but the subject so interesting, it moves you and fascinates you. Why subject that pure intent to a forum which will tell you to crop a third of the sky, etc.?
Of course it is. Most of the stuff one can find on the Net, about anything, satisfies that description.
Lula is different. There are knowledgeable people here, professionals and amateurs. I post a lot of my photos here and I have learned a huge amount from the comments people make about them, critical and (occasionally) adulatory. I don't always agree with what is said: some comments I take with a pinch of salt because it's clear that the vision of the maker differs from mine, but they're all interesting. I judge the weight to be given, in part, by my views on the photos I have seen taken by those making the comments. I like to think that I'm a reasonably intelligent chap, able to distinguish useful technical and aesthetic comment from baseless opinion (not that the two are separated by a sharp line, of course).
Jeremy
-
Of course it is. Most of the stuff one can find on the Net, about anything, satisfies that description.
Lula is different. There are knowledgeable people here, professionals and amateurs. I post a lot of my photos here and I have learned a huge amount from the comments people make about them, critical and (occasionally) adulatory. I don't always agree with what is said: some comments I take with a pinch of salt because it's clear that the vision of the maker differs from mine, but they're all interesting. I judge the weight to be given, in part, by my views on the photos I have seen taken by those making the comments. I like to think that I'm a reasonably intelligent chap, able to distinguish useful technical and aesthetic comment from baseless opinion (not that the two are separated by a sharp line, of course).
Jeremy
Well said.
-
Expanding on the cliche,'Beauty is in the mind of the beholder', I would add that all the emotional appeal and meaning of any photograph is in the mind of the beholder, whether the beholder is part of an audience or simply the person who took the shot.
I think it is reasonable to presume that any photograph can appeal to someone, with the exception, perhaps, of a photo which is presented by the photographer as an example of an image which is boring and meaningless. However, even then, there might be someone in an audience who disagrees and claims he finds the image has some sort of emotional appeal, whether abstract or symbolic.
Even the most mundane, poorly processed, out-of focus snapshot with blown highlights and blocked shadows, might have a significant emotional appeal to the person who took the shot because of the personal associations with the subject. (Not that I'm implying that Rob's recent photos, as an amateur, are that bad, of course. ;) )
This is the crux of the matter - whether the critic is a competition judge or another Lula member.
The image maker experienced the scene, captured it (possibly through multiple shots), selected the most appropriate frame, cropped it to his liking, processed it, and revisited it a few times before posting it to the forum. In summary, he is quite invested in the image and has good reasons why he shot it, how he processed and why he posted it to an audience. On the other hand, the reviewer, most of the time totally unfamiliar with the scene and subject, looks at it for a few seconds, and then issues his verdict. In addition, the image maker may like bold vibrant colors, fast shutter speed, and strengthening the impact by placing the subject centrally, whereas the "more sophisticated" reviewer would prefer a monochrome conversion, blurred silky water, and of course, placing the main subject according to the rule of thirds. He would also prefer tighter cropping and positioning the camera two steps to the left.
Another factor influencing the critic's evaluation of an image is his previous experience and familiarity with the presented landscape or scene. If he has never before seen a picture of an Antelope canyon or the Bridal waterfall with February sunset light on it, he would give it a much higher score than to a muted and artistic interpretation of a fall scene of a bubbling brook in Vermont - with or without a beaver. Or maybe he didn't get enough sleep last night, or conversely his Adobe shares just moved up.
Photo competitions judged by accredited judges are best examples of the differences of what's going on in judges heads. Quite often a specific image would elicit lowest possible score from one judge and high accolades from another judge. Much worse than in figure skating.
So while image posting to the forum is a good idea, ignoring the critics can contribute to an even better experience.
-
With regard to the first point I see images, on this site anyway, that cover so many different genres often posted by individuals who do have a particular style, and probably a highly individualistic streak anyway, that that is rarely an issue.
As for the second point that is fine for you, but your situation is NOT generalisable. This is particularly the case since the whole debate came about suggesting that newbies should not post images. Not too many of them have clients to do their critiques, do they?
You make the oddest arguments - because I am successful, what I say has no value to new photographers?? There are lots of ways to get your photos critiqued that don't involve posting on a forum. Some might cost you a little but will have much more value to you as they won't be influenced by whether or not you " like" the critiquer's photos.
I don't see any point in continuing this as I am sure you will find some odd argument to make.
-
You make the oddest arguments - because I am successful, what I say has no value to new photographers?? There are lots of ways to get your photos critiqued that don't involve posting on a forum. Some might cost you a little but will have much more value to you as they won't be influenced by whether or not you " like" the critiquer's photos.
I don't see any point in continuing this as I am sure you will find some odd argument to make.
Firstly your success, or otherwise, has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the price of tea in this matter.
Secondly, in your previous post you made no mention of the supposed "lots of ways to get your photos critiqued."
You only mentioned one way - your clients.
I most definitely questioned this because it was such an illogical response to an issue dealing with mainly non-professional photographers.
If calling out your illogical response is "odd" - then so be it.
As for the legion of new photographers out there who apparently need your help, why don't you help them out and specify the "lots of ways to get your photos critiqued" instead of trying to assign personally insulting labels to myself.
-
Wow, you have taken every single thing I said and twisted it. I first said I agreed with Rob and you wrote a long response that you extrapolated from my simple statement. I agree with a Rob. I don't agree with you. Is that clear enough?
-
Actually I have not twisted anything.
If anyone has indulged in that sort of play it would be you.
I think it is pretty clear that one cannot interact with you on a logical level.
-
Lol
-
Children,
Turn out the lights and go to sleep!
-
:P ;D
-
Lol
You see? Often, there's just no point in 'debate'. And clearly, as words cause enough confusion (and they can be used very, very accurately), how in the name of anything holy can images be discussed and/or evaluated in a forum? Of course they can't! The only real evaluation possible comes via commerce. And that one pulls no punches.
I think that life in the pro lane alters one for ever. Had I listened to anyone, including the guys with whom I spent about six years living with photographs of jet engine parts, I would have spent the rest of my life doing something similar until I was put out to pasture. Instead, I turned deaf, held my peace and threw myself into what was, for me, still the alien world of fashion and advertising pictures. It wasn't easy, and it never did become easy. But, I never had the slightest doubt that I could photograph women, ages before I ever did so. Nobody gave me critique, nor did I seek any. Truth to tell, I'd have been rather annoyed if anyone had presumed so to do. Ego? Of course! Without it, and the confidence that it can bring, this is no business for one. Shrinking violets just shrink.
;-)
Happy 2017, Sharon.
Rob C
-
I would say I agree, Rob, but I've learned my lesson. ;D Happy 2017 to you also!
Sharon
-
This image is completely overwrought. I'm not about to appoint myself the Photography Police - I'm not qualified. I just hope that in competitions this sort of engineered mess is relegated to its own category, while non-composited images have are left unmolested in their own class.
-
Interesting technical exercise, much better that way that anything I could ever do. Shooting through the ice hole is also interesting, I have done some work like that, but not in a composite.
However, the line about not wanting things to look photoshopped was hilarious. I can't get the quote right now because of the way LuLa blocks chunks of content now if I load more than one article at a time in tabs, so I may have the context wrong. That's what I remembered making me laugh, not in a mean way, but in a way that I could recognise myself saying/doing that and not getting that I was disconnected because I was so wrapped up in pursuit.
I have not seen an iceberg look like that. It was turned into something more suitable for the cover of a fantasy novel, more like a jewel that people fight over. Very beautiful but not an iceberg to me. Real ones are somewhat harmless seeming, like clouds. They aren't always really so (just ask the Titanic), but there's a certain jocundity about their bobbing out in the water. I have film photos of one that looked like an overstuffed chair out in a bay off the Newfoundland coast, they invite the viewer to anthropomorphise a bit.
The technical manipulation, into something else, removes a sort of truth about it. I see that temptation in my own work to go with what looks "zowie", and sometimes have to sit back and consider whether that impression is shallow and short-lived. A lot of perfect photos I've seen look at first like they need adjustment or look dull. The reticence to impose anything on a photo makes for a better long-term relationship, IMO.
I'm still working with that balance on my own shots, coming back to them after they've been out of sight for a while to gauge my own response more cleanly.
But I don't sell or compete, so it's mostly to please myself.
-
This image is completely overwrought. I'm not about to appoint myself the Photography Police - I'm not qualified. I just hope that in competitions this sort of engineered mess is relegated to its own category, while non-composited images have are left unmolested in their own class.
So... where does one draw the line? When does post-processing become an "engineered mess"?
Where do panoramic image blends stand?
How about HDR blends - even those not recognizable as HDRs?
What about focus-stacking?
All of these can be rendered very "natural-looking" but are composites.
Then there are those photographs that are not blends or composites but so change, even "warp" the original image/colours/textures that they are a far cry from the "natural-looking" original. Where do these stand?
The problem is not as much the style (which is up to personal preference), but it's the drawing of lines to indicate when one thing becomes another. They are not discreet. There is too much overlap. Can you imagine the "rule book" for photo competitions needed to delineate what is a "natural" rendering from a "manipulated" one - especially because, for e.g., raw files were never meant to be used without post-processing.
Big can of worms here!
-
Rob C, I love this:
"Photography, amateur, is about self. What you photograph is what you are. Nobody else can be you on your behalf; you have to do it for yourself."
SO GREAT!