Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RSL on August 19, 2009, 03:14:09 pm

Title: What's the idea?
Post by: RSL on August 19, 2009, 03:14:09 pm
Occasionally I see a very good photograph on User Critiques, but when I look at most of the images here I think about an essay Brooks Jensen wrote back in, I think, 2004, titled “More Than a Mere Record.” You can read the essay in Brooks’s book, Single Exposures.

In that article, Brooks addresses the idea that a photograph is an intersection between a place and a time, and agrees that it’s technically true, but points out that a fine art photograph, as opposed to a photograph that’s merely a record of what the photographer saw at that place and time, is an intersection between an image and an idea. He illustrates the point with a discussion of the difference between a picture of rocks and trees in Yosemite shot by the average photographer and a picture of rocks and trees shot in Yosemite by Ansel Adams.

The burden of Brooks’s argument is that when you shoot a photograph that’s supposed to be more than a record of what was in front of you at the time you tripped the shutter you need to be able to answer the question: “What idea makes this image meaningful and more than a mere record?”

Seems to me it’s reasonable, as part of the critiques on User Critiques which seem to have descended once more into the “that’s nice” rut to ask posters to answer that question, unless the answer’s clear at first glance. Over the past few days I’ve seen a few where the answer’s obvious, but I wonder what the idea was behind some of the others. In other words, why did the poster post the picture?

Are we looking for art on User Critiques or are record shots enough? Don’t misunderstand me. There are beginners on here who aren’t yet going to be able to post finished art, but even a beginner should be able to explain why he feels what he posted is more than a record.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: feppe on August 19, 2009, 03:49:21 pm
A photograph, sculpture, painting, etc. should stand on its own. If the artist needs to explain it for the viewer to "get it," he has failed.

The worst example of this are magazine articles with long tiresome interviews with mediocre artists trying to highbrow their art into some mold it doesn't fit in. Of course it's necessary to end the article with long credentials which have no relevance whatsoever to enjoying the works. I'd much rather have all that space dedicated to the art itself if it's any good.

It's like tuning to a music radio station only to find out there's some funnyguy talking - another one of my pet peeves and reason I don't listen to radio.

Allowances and exceptions apply, and context sometimes requires verbosity, but the thumb rule is a piece should not require explanation.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: RSL on August 19, 2009, 03:56:20 pm
Quote from: feppe
A photograph, sculpture, painting, etc. should stand on its own. If the artist needs to explain it for the viewer to "get it," he has failed.

Harri, I couldn't agree more. But that's exactly the point. How many of the photos currently posted on User Critiques do you "get" -- as works of art? I could name a few, but I don't want to embarrass anyone whom I'd leave out of the list. When it comes to critiques it's not a question of the viewer getting it. It's a question of the "artist" "getting it."
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: feppe on August 19, 2009, 04:09:00 pm
Quote from: RSL
When it comes to critiques it's not a question of the viewer getting it. It's a question of the "artist" "getting it."

Heh, indeed a valid and strong point  If the artist wants to convey dread over natural resource depletion, but all the viewer sees is a garish daffodil meadow reminiscent of Dr Snuggles (http://www.doctorsnuggles.com/), there's definitely a disconnect somewhere. (I hope nobody has posted a meadow picture lately.)

Your post reminds me I really should start doing some concept - or even fine art  - work to get me out of my travel photography comfort zone...
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: dalethorn on August 19, 2009, 04:12:18 pm
This can be answered in part by stepping back and looking from a different perspective, for example an analogy.

Some people are classical music buffs, and sound is OK as long as they can make out the various instruments and/or voices to a reasonable degree. Other music buffs, audiophiles, might be horrified at what comes out of the speaker systems of some of those classic music fans.

But one listener is an audiophile, and may not really be expert on the music. The other may be expert on the music, but fills in the "picture" mentally, having an atrocious playback system for listening, with poor fidelity.

Are both of these "wrong"?  Or do you have to be an actual musician to participate?  And what do you say about Frank Zappa being in the Schwann catalog?

Back to photography.  I have no problem with someone asking "what's the point of this photo?"  Or saying "this is too blurry to be useful" when blurriness is not intended as a part of the art.  But many critiques are blatant put-downs (hint) and grabs for superiority.

If I were posting on a forum like this, and the owner/managers of the forum felt that what I posted was not appropriate for whatever reason, quality or otherwise, I would expect they'd have a way of dealing with that, to save everyone unnecessary embarrassment.  But to have some cranky member make critiques that are as bad (or pointless) as the photos they allege to be bad or pointless, would be a really underhanded and low-class way to deal with it.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: cmi on August 19, 2009, 04:32:29 pm
What I do...

I only critique images I like. I do not critique images I dont like. Some images I like but I'm too lazy to comment.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: RSL on August 19, 2009, 05:05:18 pm
Quote from: Christian Miersch
What I do...

I only critique images I like. I do not critique images I dont like. Some images I like but I'm too lazy to comment.

Christian, I have to confess that's pretty much what I've been doing lately too, and I need absolution and remission because of it. That's why I made this post. When someone posts a picture on "User Critiques" one has to assume he's actually asking for critiques. I'm not suggesting we all jump in and say, "This is crap," when it's crap, but I am suggesting it's reasonable, when you can't see the point of the picture, to ask what the point is. Harri was right on the money when he said: "A photograph, sculpture, painting, etc. should stand on its own. If the artist needs to explain it for the viewer to "get it," he has failed." I've been saying exactly that to people for most of my life -- often with reference to poetry, but also with reference to painting and photography. If we see something that obviously doesn't stand on its own isn't it reasonable to ask what the "artist" intended, or even if he had an intention? I assume that when someone posts a picture for critique he's trying to learn something. Shouldn't we all try to help? You always learn more from your failures than from your successes.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: popnfresh on August 19, 2009, 05:11:12 pm
A great photograph doesn't need to have a literal meaning or a story to tell. Meaning within art is often vague and oblique and engenders more questions than answers. Photography as an art form has always straddled a line between journalism and graphic design. By itself, either one is a legitimate mode of expression and I think you could say that most of the "great" photographs contain elements of both. I think the best photojournalists are also brilliant visual artists.

When I shoot, it's not usually because I'm trying to make a social statement or convey a specific idea, but because I find a scene visually compelling on some level and I want to capture it. Occasionally, I will shoot something that could be construed as making a "statement", but I'm not usually conscious of it at the time I'm shooting it.

When I offer critiques here it's sometimes because I think I can make constructive criticism, but sometimes I just want to give props for a job well done. We all need our ego gratification.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: Rob C on August 19, 2009, 05:33:41 pm
I think that the concept of submitting images for critique is somewhat dated, apart from being an invitation to a boxing match - which some, of course, might really enjoy.

That a picture should, essentially, say something is also a little odd; why can't it simply be a pleasing set of shapes, colours or textures? (That does not include photojournalistic themes nor stock pics intended for advertising a product, service or idea which depend on an easily transmitted "message", but those are unlikely to be seen within the context of critiques.)  But the concept of getting it seems to invite the participation of the viewer as co-creator too; that´s a nonsense. To be truthful, it seems difficult enough for the written word to make the same sense to more than a handful of people at the same time - what chance an image which has no verbal structure to direct the receiving eye? That's the reason why so many pictures have titles, even the glaringly obvious ones such as Leda and her friggin' Swan! And once you put a title to something you risk killing the casual or even more satisfying experience of the personal interpretation. (We witnessed this recently via some pics of ladies in a window which, originally interesting, turned banal on further explanation.)

Almost by definition if not only because of expected and generally applied politeness, pictures posted for criticism (for good or bad) will tend to receive mostly the kisses and only a few of the kicks. I submit that as a real measure of value - an impossibility in itself - picture critques are hardly worth the bother for either party to the play. I would never post a cruel, personal opinion on another's work because I have no desire to harm someone who has done me nothing to deserve it. Therefore, if I refrain from delivering the kick when I think it is deserved, where the value of posting the image?

But it all changes when one gets into the professional arena. There, if you post for posterity, acclaim or out of good old-fashioned hubris, you had better be pretty damn good or regret it forever! Or not: you could always assume the critic is an ass and really believe it too. Perhaps that´s why only the opinions of those whom you admire for their work has any real meaning to you (within the pro context). Obviously, I exclude clients!

That critique is a form of teaching or even of learning is a bit far-fetched, I believe. Certainly you can help someone who needs/seeks advice on matters technical, but aesthetic considerations, which are what the system invite, are too personal to both creator and critic. If the creator is happy, that´s good enough.

Rob C

Title: What's the idea?
Post by: jasonrandolph on August 19, 2009, 05:51:00 pm
Thanks, Russ, for bringing up this topic.  I think it's something we all can learn from if we take the time to think about it.  I obviously can only speak for myself here when I say that I value all feedback, both positive and negative.  I think most of us here realize that "User Critiques" means good and bad.  Otherwise, it could be called something like "Shout out for the pictures you like."  And I think your question of what the photographer is trying to convey is valid and important.  I read elsewhere on LL that Michael asks the same question when he is reviewing others' work.  That doesn't mean that every image has to be a metaphor for the meaning of life, but the question should have at least crossed the photographer's mind when he/she clicked the shutter.  That's what elevates an image above a simple snapshot.

My personal approach is rather instinctive, and I try to convey my message or meaning through my approach to composition.  Hopefully, that's enough to convey what I'm trying to get across.  If not, then I think the question should be asked.  Not only will it help in creating a thoughtful critique, but it might also help the photographer to clarify the message next time around.  I think it's safe to say that we all post images in the hopes that the critiques will help us improve in some way.

With that said, no one is going to produce an image that everyone agrees on.  Photography, like all other art forms, is very subjective.  Some images speak to me, and some don't.  When my own images show up here, it's because they have meaning to me, but I like to get objective opinions of others so that I can know whether or not my efforts were adequate in conveying that meaning.  That is the value of this forum, and the reason I keep coming back is that there are some very thoughtful people here who produce work I admire, and who I think aren't afraid to tell you when you blew it.  And sometimes "silence" is the best critique of all, dreaded though it is.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: cmi on August 19, 2009, 06:17:46 pm
Quote from: jasonrandolph
...And sometimes "silence" is the best critique of all, dreaded though it is.

Thanks Jason, I was just not able to sum it up so perfect!

And Russ, I will respond later.

Title: What's the idea?
Post by: RSL on August 19, 2009, 09:55:24 pm
Quote from: jasonrandolph
Thanks, Russ, for bringing up this topic.  I think it's something we all can learn from if we take the time to think about it.  I obviously can only speak for myself here when I say that I value all feedback, both positive and negative.  I think most of us here realize that "User Critiques" means good and bad.  Otherwise, it could be called something like "Shout out for the pictures you like."  And I think your question of what the photographer is trying to convey is valid and important.  I read elsewhere on LL that Michael asks the same question when he is reviewing others' work.  That doesn't mean that every image has to be a metaphor for the meaning of life, but the question should have at least crossed the photographer's mind when he/she clicked the shutter.  That's what elevates an image above a simple snapshot.

My personal approach is rather instinctive, and I try to convey my message or meaning through my approach to composition.  Hopefully, that's enough to convey what I'm trying to get across.  If not, then I think the question should be asked.  Not only will it help in creating a thoughtful critique, but it might also help the photographer to clarify the message next time around.  I think it's safe to say that we all post images in the hopes that the critiques will help us improve in some way.

With that said, no one is going to produce an image that everyone agrees on.  Photography, like all other art forms, is very subjective.  Some images speak to me, and some don't.  When my own images show up here, it's because they have meaning to me, but I like to get objective opinions of others so that I can know whether or not my efforts were adequate in conveying that meaning.  That is the value of this forum, and the reason I keep coming back is that there are some very thoughtful people here who produce work I admire, and who I think aren't afraid to tell you when you blew it.  And sometimes "silence" is the best critique of all, dreaded though it is.

Jason. I agree with everything you said. I should add that I meant to say something about the fact you pointed out: that no one is going to produce an image everyone agrees on. I got interrupted by actual work and forgot to do it. It seems to me that that's one of the great things about a User Critiques forum like this one. If you hang a picture in a gallery some gallery goers will love the picture, others will hate the picture, and the rest will pass on by without a second glance. That's exactly what happens here on User Critiques, but since we can't see the expressions on the faces of the people who look at what's posted it's important for those who react to say something about their reaction -- whether it's positive or negative. As you point out, silence is -- or at least should be -- the most dreaded response of all.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: dalethorn on August 19, 2009, 10:05:46 pm
Quote from: RSL
As you point out, silence is -- or at least should be -- the most dreaded response of all.

Not even close. Silence is golden. Now what would or should be dreaded is when the second number (number of visits or downloads) is really low. That would mean nobody cares enough to even have a quick look.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: BlackSmith on August 20, 2009, 12:07:01 am
This is a good thread, and goes to the heart of why as a beginner I want to reach out and post my photographs in 'User Critiques'. A photograph's meaning is individual to the viewer, right? While I have no problem developing my own opinions of my work, it is the making of connections with others and communicating meaning that is a mystery and a challenge.

This has been my mentality (I've actually posted only one photograph for critique) - submit an image that has meaning to me and one that I consider to have some degree of artistic merit, but one that would lead to unpredictable connection with others. I expect the majority of responses to not actually give a constructive critique, but give the viewer's first impression in a short sentence or two. This then is still instructive to learning what holds meaning for others. Even more so, because I hold the opinions of this group in high regard. Actual constructive critiques and helpful suggestions are then a bonus. And it is for these reasons that I also read most of the responses to other people's submissions.

And I agree with Russ. I think that silence can be the hardest to take. Mike (Wolfnowl) finds the beauty in most any photograph and almost always comments even if it's brief. But he rarely gives cutting remarks. When he didn't comment on my previous submission, I took that as a clear statement. I know, way over sensitive.

Sorry, thought it was apropos. Just ignore.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: JeffKohn on August 20, 2009, 01:07:04 am
I don't think a photo has to make a statement or have some deep meaning to be art. To me that approach can get you into the realm of hoity-toity art; taking a picture of a trash heap and declaring it a commentary on modern society's mass consumerism might score points with the NYC art critics, but to me it's just pretentious BS. I don't see a problem with photographing beauty for beauty's sake, or capturing a fleeting moment of nice light, etc.

Russ mentions the difference between a fine art photograph of "trees and rocks" by Ansel versus a "trees and rock" photo by the average photographer; but I think the real difference there is largely one of skill, craft, and artistic vision rather than any differences in meaning. From what I've read, I don't get the impression that Ansel ascribed any deep meanings to his images beyond an appreciation for (and desire to preserve) the beauty of the natural world. I do tend to think that a good photograph will at least have a subject, but that's not necessarily the same thing as meaning.

As far as participation in the user critiques forum, I think the quality of comments here is better than any other forum I know of. People tend to be polite, but it's not all just "nice shot" comments; there are a lot of insights shared by various posters that I find valuable and interesting.

My approach to commenting is that I"ll tend to comment on the images I like, but more than just saying "nice" shot I try to describe why I like it. I will also offer criticism if there is something that I think could have improved the image, either technically or aesthetically. But there are some subjects that just don't interest me, and I don't think posting a comment to say that I find the image boring or pointless is very useful when it may be a perfectly fine photograph that appeals to people who _do_ find the subject interesting. So in those cases I'm likely to just say nothing.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 20, 2009, 03:46:41 am
Quote from: popnfresh
When I shoot, it's not usually because I'm trying to make a social statement or convey a specific idea, but because I find a scene visually compelling on some level and I want to capture it. Occasionally, I will shoot something that could be construed as making a "statement", but I'm not usually conscious of it at the time I'm shooting it.

When I offer critiques here it's sometimes because I think I can make constructive criticism, but sometimes I just want to give props for a job well done. We all need our ego gratification.
I agree wholeheartedly on both points. Perhaps landscape is different in that respect from street photography: the latter really does need to "say" something, since generally the image itself isn't immediately visually pleasing. A landscape doesn't, it seems to me, need to be anything more than a beautiful scene to succeed.

Is it "art"? That's a meaningless question.

Jeremy
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: Rob C on August 20, 2009, 06:12:54 am
Quote from: Jeremy Payne
Don't some people say that lots of folks watch NASCAR just for the wrecks?



Absolutely on the money, and why I don´t have a high opinion of the entire concept of the 'critique'. Weegee would have enjoyed it, though.

Rob C
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: byork on August 20, 2009, 06:59:28 am
Quote from: BlackSmith
Russ, if you feel in any way that this submission hijacks your thread, I come back and edit it out right away.

Yes your right, you should have submitted this as it has it's artistic merits (in my opinion anyway), but I'm not about to elaborate as that would be hijacking Russ's thread. And FWIW, I think Russ would be the first to pass comment.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: cmi on August 20, 2009, 07:10:03 am
Quote from: RSL
Christian,

... I have to confess that's pretty much what I've been doing lately too, and I need absolution and remission because of it.

... When someone posts a picture on "User Critiques" one has to assume he's actually asking for critiques.

... I am suggesting it's reasonable, when you can't see the point of the picture, to ask what the point is.

... If we see something that obviously doesn't stand on its own isn't it reasonable to ask what the "artist" intended, or even if he had an intention?

... I assume that when someone posts a picture for critique he's trying to learn something.

... Shouldn't we all try to help?

...You always learn more from your failures than from your successes.

Russ,

A personal choice, nothing I will give you a yes or a no. Some thoughts come to my mind. It's for me nothing to discuss, only something to explain further, If someone wants and if I want.

I liked the way the subforum took in the last time. Less wars, less speech bubbles, more spot-on comments.

If I would enforce critique on someone who clearly doesn't want to hear me, I'd be arrogant, or forcing, or the like. Some time ago I have thought, isn't it odd, that I do so less with my own images, but critique so much the images of others? One reason more to stay shut for me, concentrate more on the own work.

And that someone doesn't want to hear me can have several reasons. Either he just cant take critique (very seldom here but common elsewhere), then I stop commenting on their images. Who am I, to impose me on them?

However there where other cases where I seemingly pissed people off with my attitude without realizing it, and my points get therefore dismissed. So I am the cause of the bad reaction, so it was my problem. When Im in good mood, people react mostly nicely.

Also, avoiding discussions saves stress. I just dont like the feeling when there is some war with someone, and you are anxious what insult the other have might written. Thoughts revolving about a damn forum when Im out in my real life. Disgusting. So I better dont touch people who could make trouble for me.

Also generally its not uncommon that someone realizes something that was said only much, much later. So people will just not react, and they wont thank you, but they will later get it. And if you made a really good point, they WILL be thankful.

Also there will always be people who just are not able to do decent images for a multitude of reasons and who will barely improve. Thats just the way it is. And "decent image" goes on many different levels. Also a learned photographer can be average. Where am I, who stand I?  Everybody is on this ladder.

All the best,


Christian
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: byork on August 20, 2009, 07:11:45 am
Quote from: kikashi
A landscape doesn't, it seems to me, need to be anything more than a beautiful scene to succeed.

Jeremy

I thought exactly the same way Jeremy except for one caveat that Alain Briot reminded us of in another thread recently;

"In Fine Art Landscape Photography we photograph the light first and the subject second.

If you only photograph the subject you will forever be disappointed in your images.

Your first thought when looking at a scene must be about light". Alain Briot
 
And I promise I wont be so damn trigger happy in future.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: dalethorn on August 20, 2009, 08:27:54 am
Quote from: byork
.....one caveat that Alain Briot reminded us of in another thread recently;
"In Fine Art Landscape Photography we photograph the light first and the subject second.
If you only photograph the subject you will forever be disappointed in your images.
Your first thought when looking at a scene must be about light". Alain Briot

A very important comment. Obviously we can go back and snap the photo again and again many times under differing light, but like the folks who tried to duplicate A.Adams' photos, it has limited success, or none at all.

But that assumes you want a particular look, moreso than a particular content. If I were shooting fashion, I might go that way. For architecture, my audience may prefer an emphasis on content, with a few get-the-light fluff pieces thrown in for effect.

If you can successfully change your mode of thinking permanently to first photograph the light, you will become a different person (or different photographer). Whether that's better or not may not be the final word, depending on who has control of the personality after that point - the sentient person, or the photographer's new engrams.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: Jeremy Payne on August 20, 2009, 09:34:55 am
Quote from: dalethorn
But that assumes you want a particular look, moreso than a particular content.

'A snapshot is popularly defined as a photograph that is "shot" spontaneously and quickly, most often without artistic or journalistic intent. Snapshots are commonly considered to be technically "imperfect" or amateurish--out of focus or poorly framed or composed. The term derives from the snap shot of hunting. Common snapshot subjects include the events of everyday life, such as birthday parties and other celebrations; sunsets; children playing; group photos; pets; and the like.

The snapshot concept was introduced to the public on a large scale by Eastman Kodak, which produced the Brownie box camera around 1900. Kodak encouraged families to use the Brownie to capture moments in time and to shoot photos without being concerned with producing perfect images. Kodak advertising urged consumers to "celebrate the moments of your life" and find a "Kodak moment."

The "snapshot camera" tradition continues with inexpensive point-and-shoot digital cameras that fully automate flash, ISO, focus, shutter speed, and other functions, making the shooting of a good-quality image simple. Such cameras are typically programed to achieve a deep depth of field and high shutter speed so that as much of the image is in focus as possible. For expert photographers, who are better able to control the focus point, the use of shallow depth of field often achieves more pleasing images by blurring the background and making the subject stand out.'


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapshot_(photography) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapshot_(photography))
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: dalethorn on August 20, 2009, 10:20:10 am
Whether you go to a scene with a small camera or heavy equipment is an indication of your level of commitment to *that particular session*, not a level of commitment to photography in general, or even to photographing that particular day.  How much equipment you take, and how much "care" you take with each photograph is a compromise between quantity and quality.  Is quality over quantity an absolute?

Anyone who says there are absolutes here is just jerking you around.

If participating in this forum changes you in some way, then all you have to do is get up in the morning and say "yeah, I like the new me", or "ohmygod I've become one of them."

I don't intend to become one of them, just something better.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: dalethorn on August 20, 2009, 10:55:36 am
Quote from: Jeremy Payne
'A snapshot is popularly defined as a photograph that is "shot" spontaneously and quickly, most often without artistic or journalistic intent. Snapshots are commonly considered to be technically "imperfect" or amateurish--out of focus or poorly framed or composed. The term derives from the snap shot of hunting. Common snapshot subjects include the events of everyday life, such as birthday parties and other celebrations; sunsets; children playing; group photos; pets; and the like.
The snapshot concept was introduced to the public on a large scale by Eastman Kodak, which produced the Brownie box camera around 1900. Kodak encouraged families to use the Brownie to capture moments in time and to shoot photos without being concerned with producing perfect images. Kodak advertising urged consumers to "celebrate the moments of your life" and find a "Kodak moment."
The "snapshot camera" tradition continues with inexpensive point-and-shoot digital cameras that fully automate flash, ISO, focus, shutter speed, and other functions, making the shooting of a good-quality image simple. Such cameras are typically programed to achieve a deep depth of field and high shutter speed so that as much of the image is in focus as possible. For expert photographers, who are better able to control the focus point, the use of shallow depth of field often achieves more pleasing images by blurring the background and making the subject stand out.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapshot_(photography) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapshot_(photography))

Someone who wishes to remain anonymous sent me a link to this post.  I think this person would be happier on a camera forum, not a photography forum.  I don't think LLVJ has ever promoted Kodak/Brownie/Snapshot photography, but I can see that this person might be confused about that.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: Rob C on August 20, 2009, 11:54:24 am
Well, today started out normally, but by mid-day I knew it was going to be a bummer: I had decided not to go out for lunch. Obviously a huge temptation and opportunity for Dame Fate (a cousin to Fortune), this led to too much postprandial time to kill and I ended up a ladder with a bucket of soapy water and a brush, cleaning wooden shutters which I had neglected during the previous year.

Which means that tomorrow, unless I´m lucky and it rains, I´ll have to start varnishing. There are many shutters; they seem to grow in number and in size as the unavoidable time approaches. Jeez, won't you miss me whilst I'm gone!

;-)

Rob C
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: button on August 20, 2009, 12:11:23 pm
Quote from: jasonrandolph
And sometimes "silence" is the best critique of all, dreaded though it is.

The worst publicity is no publicity.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: RSL on August 20, 2009, 12:43:25 pm
Quote from: Christian Miersch
If I would enforce critique on someone who clearly doesn't want to hear me, I'd be arrogant, or forcing, or the like. Some time ago I have thought, isn't it odd, that I do so less with my own images, but critique so much the images of others? One reason more to stay shut for me, concentrate more on the own work.

And that someone doesn't want to hear me can have several reasons. Either he just cant take critique (very seldom here but common elsewhere), then I stop commenting on their images. Who am I, to impose me on them?

However there where other cases where I seemingly pissed people off with my attitude without realizing it, and my points get therefore dismissed. So I am the cause of the bad reaction, so it was my problem. When Im in good mood, people react mostly nicely.

Christian,

Thanks for the thoughts, but when someone posts a picture on a forum called "User Critiques," the critiques he receives hardly can be considered "forced" on him or "imposed" on him. I agree it's unfortunate when someone becomes upset about a criticism, but the solution for someone like that is simple: stop posting pictures. If you have the cojones to post a picture you'd better have the cojones either to accept or to ignore the criticisms you get. On the other side of the coin, if someone's adverse reaction to your criticism upsets you, the solution is to avoid offering criticisms.

Title: What's the idea?
Post by: dalethorn on August 20, 2009, 01:54:37 pm
Quote from: RSL
Christian,
Thanks for the thoughts, but when someone posts a picture on a forum called "User Critiques," the critiques he receives hardly can be considered "forced" on him or "imposed" on him. I agree it's unfortunate when someone becomes upset about a criticism, but the solution for someone like that is simple: stop posting pictures. If you have the cojones to post a picture you'd better have the cojones either to accept or to ignore the criticisms you get. On the other side of the coin, if someone's adverse reaction to your criticism upsets you, the solution is to avoid offering criticisms.

I'm not sure how to categorize this - something similar to a straw man argument?

One who posts abusive critiques like "doesn't have the mental equipment to......" and so on, then posts a would-be disclaimer like this, should be pointed out for what he or she does.

Like I said before, don't take the bait.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: dalethorn on August 20, 2009, 01:56:38 pm
Quote from: Rob C
Well, today started out normally, but by mid-day I knew it was going to be a bummer: I had decided not to go out for lunch. Obviously a huge temptation and opportunity for Dame Fate (a cousin to Fortune), this led to too much postprandial time to kill and I ended up a ladder with a bucket of soapy water and a brush, cleaning wooden shutters which I had neglected during the previous year.
Which means that tomorrow, unless I´m lucky and it rains, I´ll have to start varnishing. There are many shutters; they seem to grow in number and in size as the unavoidable time approaches. Jeez, won't you miss me whilst I'm gone!
;-)
Rob C

I hope you wouldn't mind putting up a few snaps of what you're into. The way things are going, it could be the uplifting event of the week.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: RSL on August 20, 2009, 02:28:59 pm
Quote from: JeffKohn
I don't think a photo has to make a statement or have some deep meaning to be art. To me that approach can get you into the realm of hoity-toity art; taking a picture of a trash heap and declaring it a commentary on modern society's mass consumerism might score points with the NYC art critics, but to me it's just pretentious BS. I don't see a problem with photographing beauty for beauty's sake, or capturing a fleeting moment of nice light, etc.

Russ mentions the difference between a fine art photograph of "trees and rocks" by Ansel versus a "trees and rock" photo by the average photographer; but I think the real difference there is largely one of skill, craft, and artistic vision rather than any differences in meaning. From what I've read, I don't get the impression that Ansel ascribed any deep meanings to his images beyond an appreciation for (and desire to preserve) the beauty of the natural world. I do tend to think that a good photograph will at least have a subject, but that's not necessarily the same thing as meaning.

As far as participation in the user critiques forum, I think the quality of comments here is better than any other forum I know of. People tend to be polite, but it's not all just "nice shot" comments; there are a lot of insights shared by various posters that I find valuable and interesting.

My approach to commenting is that I"ll tend to comment on the images I like, but more than just saying "nice" shot I try to describe why I like it. I will also offer criticism if there is something that I think could have improved the image, either technically or aesthetically. But there are some subjects that just don't interest me, and I don't think posting a comment to say that I find the image boring or pointless is very useful when it may be a perfectly fine photograph that appeals to people who _do_ find the subject interesting. So in those cases I'm likely to just say nothing.

Jeff, I suspect I should have quoted more of Brooks Jensen's article, but I was hoping people would read the whole thing. It's available on the web, but at the moment I haven't time to go looking for it. The book, itself, is home and I'm in my office. The burden of Brooks's argument about Ansel was that most people shoot to make a record of what they see. Ansel shot to express an idea but not necessarily a "deep meaning." He went on to suggest opening a photography book by one of the masters and looking at the pictures. His point was that with each picture you'd be able to recognize an idea.

I think Brooks is right, but... I have trouble with the word "idea" in that context. Let's put the idea thing a different way. Instead of asking for the "idea" behind a shot let's simply ask someone who posted a picture for criticism why he shot the picture -- if the reason isn't immediately obvious. As both you and Jeremy (kikashi) pointed out, "I felt it was beautiful" is reason enough. In street photography the reason's often going to be a revealing interchange between people. In abstraction an interesting line would be a valid reason.

I agree that it would be insulting to call a picture boring or pointless, even, or perhaps especially, if the picture is boring or pointless. But people don't go around shooting pictures because they thought what they were shooting was boring or pointless. There's always an idea there, somewhere. It's reasonable to ask "why?".

I also agree with your assessment of User Critiques. There are few, if any other fora where you actually can discuss photographs as opposed to photographic equipment. This is the best by far.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 20, 2009, 05:56:29 pm
Quote from: byork
I thought exactly the same way Jeremy except for one caveat that Alain Briot reminded us of in another thread recently;

"In Fine Art Landscape Photography we photograph the light first and the subject second.

If you only photograph the subject you will forever be disappointed in your images.

Your first thought when looking at a scene must be about light". Alain Briot
 
And I promise I wont be so damn trigger happy in future.
Alain is obviously right, but I don't think there's anything there that contradicts me. A scene isn't - can't be - beautiful unless it's beautifully lit.

Jeremy
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: byork on August 20, 2009, 08:16:00 pm
Quote from: kikashi
A scene isn't - can't be - beautiful unless it's beautifully lit.

Jeremy

Jeremy,

My comment was in no way meant to contradict you....and I'm sorry if you feel it was. It was merely an acknowledgment that we thought alike, but Alain's comment really struck a cord with me. However, I can't agree with the above quote. I believe it is possible to be confronted by a scene in what could be described from a photographic point of view as bad light, but would still inspire a feeling of awe in it's beauty. Nevertheless, a photo in said bad light would not have the same effect.

Regards
Brian
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: RSL on August 20, 2009, 09:53:58 pm
Quote from: byork
Jeremy,

My comment was in no way meant to contradict you....and I'm sorry if you feel it was. It was merely an acknowledgment that we thought alike, but Alain's comment really struck a cord with me. However, I can't agree with the above quote. I believe it is possible to be confronted by a scene in what could be described from a photographic point of view as bad light, but would still inspire a feeling of awe in it's beauty. Nevertheless, a photo in said bad light would not have the same effect.

Regards
Brian

Brian,

I think Alain's right with respect to the kind of photography he does, but, as you've implied, the obvious question is: what, exactly is "good light" and, by implication, what is "Bad light?" For instance, good light for a landscape photographer is often "bad light" for a street photographer. Ansel, and I think, Alain usually would prefer dawn light or evening light -- direct sun, low, either as sidelight or quartering backlight. But that kind of light can produce a dynamic range that makes street photography almost impossible -- which is why HCB preferred overcast days. There are a lot of exceptions to this idea. Fog usually is good for landscape and for street and for certain kinds of architectural shots, and there are cases where a street shot in low backlight can be stunning. Seems to me what's "good light" or "bad light" depends almost entirely on the situation.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: John R on August 20, 2009, 09:55:51 pm
I still think there is a lot of bad blood on this forum. My observation is the critique forum consists of the same people and so you get the same kinds of critiques and commentary- likes and dislikes- and photos. It can't be otherwise with so few people. Frankly, I believe most people post images on this and other forums just to have their images looked at and for some feedback, not necessarily 'critiques'. Most of us know good photos from medicore and bad. Occasionally some are great. I freely admit to posting just for some feedback and not much more. I have a lot of experience with Photo Clubs and critiques, where even the judges, some pros, recognized the best photos were not much different than their own. We have to acccept the bad and medicore along with the good and great images, if this forum is going to last. I suggest a limit of posts (images) if people feel there are too many from any one person in a given period. So, if and when things get ugly around here, I have to say good-bye.

JMR
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: dalethorn on August 20, 2009, 10:00:44 pm
Quote from: John R
I still think there is a lot of bad blood on this forum. My observation is the critique forum consists of the same people and so you get the same kinds of critiques and commentary- likes and dislikes- and photos. It can't be otherwise with so few people. Frankly, I believe most people post images on this and other forums just to have their images looked at and for some feedback, not necessarily 'critiques'. Most of us know good photos from medicore and bad. Occasionally some are great. I freely admit to posting just for some feedback and not much more. I have a lot of experience with Photo Clubs and critiques, where even the judges, some pros, recognized the best photos were not much different than their own. We have to acccept the bad and medicore along with the good and great images, if this forum is going to last. I suggest a limit of posts (images) if people feel there are too many from any one person in a given period. So, if and when things get ugly around here, I have to say good-bye.
JMR

The problem is not that "things get ugly", it's that some people feel superior to others, and start threads like this to intimidate others who aren't as experienced as them. Then those same people claim that they administer "tough critique" to some people, when in reality they use terms like "posterior orifice of the month" to describe people they don't like.

It's intimidation, bullying, you get the picture.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: alainbriot on August 20, 2009, 10:04:30 pm
Quote from: RSL
Brian,

I think Alain's right with respect to the kind of photography he does, but, as you've implied, the obvious question is: what, exactly is "good light" and, by implication, what is "Bad light?" For instance, good light for a landscape photographer is often "bad light" for a street photographer. Ansel, and I think, Alain usually would prefer dawn light or evening light -- direct sun, low, either as sidelight or quartering backlight. But that kind of light can produce a dynamic range that makes street photography almost impossible -- which is why HCB preferred overcast days. There are a lot of exceptions to this idea. Fog usually is good for landscape and for street and for certain kinds of architectural shots, and there are cases where a street shot in low backlight can be stunning. Seems to me what's "good light" or "bad light" depends almost entirely on the situation.


I am pleased that my comments on light are helpful in the context of this discussion.

I tend to think that there is no such thing as "bad light" or "good light".  There is just "light!"  

Now this doesn't mean that I like all light (sic.). I have my preferences, and as Russ says, morning and evening light, plus open shade, are among my favorites.

But, I own prints and I love images done in totally different types of lighting.  Used by someone else, types of light that would not work for me result in fantastic images.  It's all in how one uses the light.  

It's all in the inspiration and the talent, the vision, that someone has that leads them to use a type of light that others would dismiss in such a way that it results in incredible images.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: RSL on August 20, 2009, 10:05:32 pm
Quote from: John R
I still think there is a lot of bad blood on this forum. My observation is the critique forum consists of the same people and so you get the same kinds of critiques and commentary- likes and dislikes- and photos. It can't be otherwise with so few people. Frankly, I believe most people post images on this and other forums just to have their images looked at and for some feedback, not necessarily 'critiques'. Most of us know good photos from medicore and bad. Occasionally some are great. I freely admit to posting just for some feedback and not much more. I have a lot of experience with Photo Clubs and critiques, where even the judges, some pros, recognized the best photos were not much different than their own. We have to acccept the bad and medicore along with the good and great images, if this forum is going to last. I suggest a limit of posts (images) if people feel there are too many from any one person in a given period. So, if and when things get ugly around here, I have to say good-bye.

JMR

John, To take your argument to its logical conclusion, we need a new forum for you and others who don't want criticism called something like "User Displays." On that forum we'd only allow attaboy responses. A forum titled "User Critiques" makes clear exactly what it's for.

As far as "bad blood" is concerned, you may have noticed that there was no "bad blood" for a few weeks recently.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: dalethorn on August 20, 2009, 10:08:41 pm
Quote from: RSL
John, To take your argument to its logical conclusion, we need a new forum for you and others who don't want criticism called something like "User Displays." On that forum we'd only allow attaboy responses. A forum titled "User Critiques" makes clear exactly what it's for.
As far as "bad blood" is concerned, you may have noticed that there was no "bad blood" for a few weeks recently.

There was no bad blood because the person you hate, that you called a "posterior orifice" and whom you said was retarded was not posting then.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: tom b on August 20, 2009, 10:21:01 pm
Quote from: kikashi
A scene isn't - can't be - beautiful unless it's beautifully lit.

Jeremy

Recently I spent a week down the NSW South Coast. The best shots that I got were taken around midday on a rocky sea shelf. The lighting was stark and the shelf not particularly attractive. The resulting B&W images were the best shots for the week.

Sometimes you can have terrible lighting and get great images. Take Trent Parke – he did a series of photographs where the lighting was extreme but the images were fascinating.

You can see an example here:

http://www.in-public.com/store/image/file/1506/10.jpg (http://www.in-public.com/store/image/file/1506/10.jpg)

It's how you use the lighting that is most important.

Cheers,
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: shutterpup on August 21, 2009, 12:04:07 am
I came to the realization recently that my photos are not of the quality that I would like them to be. Prior to that self-revelation, I did post some photos, some ok, most not. The negative comments I got were invaluable to me. I was someone who read about this or that technique, and then like a small child experimenting, tried what I thought was the idea and submitted it here.

I failed to understand the concept of light. I was told that over and over. And I think it is a general disregard for working with the light that makes a photo "just a record of a moment" instead of a good photograph. I think it can help to have a great subject to start with, but without the lighting being used to advantage, the resulting photo is nothing to write home about.

I think we all have our favorite times of day to shoot based on the light at those times. But poor composition coupled with poor light equals a poor photo. That's where I've found myself these days, and it's why I haven't posted a pic in a while. I just don't have anything I myself find worthy of sharing. I am no longer a small child running to family members with every little picture that I make, proudly asking them to take a look. I want taking a look to be worthwhile.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: dalethorn on August 21, 2009, 12:15:01 am
Quote from: shutterpup
I came to the realization recently that my photos are not of the quality that I would like them to be. Prior to that self-revelation, I did post some photos, some ok, most not. The negative comments I got were invaluable to me. I was someone who read about this or that technique, and then like a small child experimenting, tried what I thought was the idea and submitted it here.
I failed to understand the concept of light. I was told that over and over. And I think it is a general disregard for working with the light that makes a photo "just a record of a moment" instead of a good photograph. I think it can help to have a great subject to start with, but without the lighting being used to advantage, the resulting photo is nothing to write home about.
I think we all have our favorite times of day to shoot based on the light at those times. But poor composition coupled with poor light equals a poor photo. That's where I've found myself these days, and it's why I haven't posted a pic in a while. I just don't have anything I myself find worthy of sharing. I am no longer a small child running to family members with every little picture that I make, proudly asking them to take a look. I want taking a look to be worthwhile.

You should post an occasional photo anyway.  Myself and many others here appreciate seeing a non-perfect photo.  It really helps balance the perfect ones.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: wolfnowl on August 21, 2009, 02:59:28 am
THanks to Russ for starting this thread... it's evolved into some interesting discussion without devolving into name-calling.  At least so far.  My own view with regard to 'User Critiques' is that when I look at what's posted I try to come up with either someting nice to say, and if I can't do that, I look for something constructive to add.  If the image doesn't appeal to me personally (and nowhere is it written that every image posted here must do that!), and if I have nothing constructive to add, i.e. 'have you considered...' or 'if it was my image...' then I keep my mouth shut and move on.

Mike.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 21, 2009, 03:28:28 am
Quote from: byork
Jeremy,

My comment was in no way meant to contradict you....and I'm sorry if you feel it was. It was merely an acknowledgment that we thought alike, but Alain's comment really struck a cord with me. However, I can't agree with the above quote. I believe it is possible to be confronted by a scene in what could be described from a photographic point of view as bad light, but would still inspire a feeling of awe in it's beauty. Nevertheless, a photo in said bad light would not have the same effect.

Regards
Brian
No, I didn't think there was and I'm not remotely offended!

I think to some extent what we have been discussing in relation to Alain's comment is circular. A scene looks good if "beautifully lit", as I commented: but equally, if the image looks good, it has been if not beautifully then at least appropriately lit.

Russ is obviously correct: what is good light for some forms of photography will inevitably be bad light for others. His contrast between lighting for good landscape and good street photography is one example. Another might be an attempt to convey gloom and foreboding, which wouldn't be helped by warm evening sunshine.

I think there's a measure of agreement here and I don't see the thread, with perhaps one exception, degenerating. It's been an interesting discussion.

Jeremy
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: Jeremy Payne on August 21, 2009, 07:09:57 am
Quote from: dalethorn
There was no bad blood because the person you hate, that you called a "posterior orifice" and whom you said was retarded was not posting then.
Dale ... wow, man ... you gotta chill out ... it ain't all about you.

Title: What's the idea?
Post by: John R on August 21, 2009, 07:14:31 am
Quote from: RSL
John, To take your argument to its logical conclusion, we need a new forum for you and others who don't want criticism called something like "User Displays." On that forum we'd only allow attaboy responses. A forum titled "User Critiques" makes clear exactly what it's for.

As far as "bad blood" is concerned, you may have noticed that there was no "bad blood" for a few weeks recently.
Not really. not looking for accolades or nice comments necessarily. One can still critique but it's usually much shorter. And you don't have to like photos even when others do. I don't think many will learn from this forum as almost any photo book, association, class or photo outing, is the way to go if you want to learn. Why should I say someone's image looks like someone that most people never heard of. If we stick to basics, then people might learn, just like in a classroom. And why bother to critique just to crop because you like it different, as opposed to trying to balance an image. There is too much of that also.

JMR
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: dalethorn on August 21, 2009, 07:33:27 am
Quote from: Jeremy Payne
Dale ... wow, man ... you gotta chill out ... it ain't all about you.

What does it mean "wow man"?  Does it mean that I lied?  That Russ did not actually call me an a__hole?  Does it mean that you did not actually resort to name calling as well?  What are you trying to say?  That name calling is OK when you and Russ do it?
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: ognita on August 21, 2009, 08:14:02 am
I want to mention that giving comments on a photo is somehow hard for some. I personally find it challenging to elaborate on things that I like (specially in a language not my own) I have always been amazed on comments that seems to dissect the photo with ease. Maybe they went to some art school and knows the terms to use (come to think of it, most of them are professors, hehe)

In any case, it's a good thread. Discussions on the quality (or lack of it) of feedback is good for the community
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: dalethorn on August 21, 2009, 09:10:41 am
Quote from: wolfnowl
THanks to Russ for starting this thread...
Mike.

Since Russ usually (or always) pontificates, one would have to question why he, a person who has expressed disinterest in landscape photography, and who feels that 'HCB' is superior to 'AA' etc. etc., would assign himself to be the arbiter of who should and shouldn't post in this landscape photography forum.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: shutterpup on August 21, 2009, 09:28:07 am
Quote from: dalethorn
You should post an occasional photo anyway.  Myself and many others here appreciate seeing a non-perfect photo.  It really helps balance the perfect ones.


It is beyond me why anyone would think I would want to post a photo that by my own personal standards is substandard unless I have a specific question about composition or the like. Ineffective light makes an ineffective photo. We've all been there and done it; we don't need to share every photo we take IMHO.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: shutterpup on August 21, 2009, 09:30:54 am
Quote from: dalethorn
Since Russ usually (or always) pontificates, one would have to question why he, a person who has expressed disinterest in landscape photography, and who feels that 'HCB' is superior to 'AA' etc. etc., would assign himself to be the arbiter of who should and shouldn't post in this landscape photography forum.


Russ isn't arbitrating in any way who should or shouldn't post. We need an area like this to exchange ideas and information specific to specific photos. The rules that someone said we should get from classes and books sometimes just don't work when it comes to a specific photo. I myself have never received poor critique except one comment suggesting that I submit my own substandard work.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: Jeremy Payne on August 21, 2009, 10:01:00 am
Quote from: dalethorn
What does it mean "wow man"?
Means ...

Wow, man ... thought you might have learned something on your break, but it seems like the same old Dale ...

Title: What's the idea?
Post by: dalethorn on August 21, 2009, 10:45:46 am
Quote from: shutterpup
It is beyond me why anyone would think I would want to post a photo that by my own personal standards is substandard unless I have a specific question about composition or the like. Ineffective light makes an ineffective photo. We've all been there and done it; we don't need to share every photo we take IMHO.

I said occasional photo, not every photo.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: dalethorn on August 21, 2009, 10:47:18 am
Quote from: Jeremy Payne
Means ...
Wow, man ... thought you might have learned something on your break, but it seems like the same old Dale ...

It certainly is the same old Jeremy Payne, obsessed with dalethorn.

As you should be, I suppose, since you have so much to learn.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: dalethorn on August 21, 2009, 10:51:17 am
Quote from: shutterpup
Russ isn't arbitrating in any way who should or shouldn't post.

From Russ:
"Harri, I couldn't agree more. But that's exactly the point. How many of the photos currently posted on User Critiques do you "get" -- as works of art? I could name a few, but I don't want to embarrass anyone...."

I'd call that being an arbiter.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: cmi on August 21, 2009, 10:51:29 am
Dale! You might not or might be right, but right NOW you are damaging your own position! I dont like this thread either, but we all have all faults, you and me included! My advice: Stop talking to Russ, or ABOUT Russ altogether. We all have brains and can make up our own opinion, nobody here needs someone to warn about other persons. Thats just disgusting.

Just stay away from each other, stay away from Russ, because the noise that results only prohibit a *real* discussion and leaves a battlefield with scars. I dont see how the discussion in this  current state would lead to a solution for anything. You dont need to start hugging, plain tolerance will do.

Just stop it, please.



Christian

//edit for dales comment under me: "nobody here needs someone to warn about other persons." In the sense, that we are all adults and form our own opinions.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: dalethorn on August 21, 2009, 10:56:46 am
Quote from: Christian Miersch
You might be right...

I dont like this thread either....

Stop talking to Russ....

nobody here needs someone to warn about other persons....

Well taken, especially the last phrase.  Ironic, isn't it?  About how nobody needs the warning. Heh.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: shutterpup on August 21, 2009, 11:11:32 am
Quote from: Christian Miersch
Dale! You might not or might be right, but right NOW you are damaging your own position! I dont like this thread either, but we all have all faults, you and me included! My advice: Stop talking to Russ, or ABOUT Russ altogether. We all have brains and can make up our own opinion, nobody here needs someone to warn about other persons. Thats just disgusting.

Just stay away from each other, stay away from Russ, because the noise that results only prohibit a *real* discussion and leaves a battlefield with scars. I dont see how the discussion in this  current state would lead to a solution for anything. You dont need to start hugging, plain tolerance will do.

Just stop it, please.



Christian

//edit for dales comment under me: "nobody here needs someone to warn about other persons." In the sense, that we are all adults and form our own opinions.

Well said, Christian.
Title: What's the idea?
Post by: dalethorn on August 21, 2009, 11:33:25 am
Quote from: shutterpup
Well said, Christian.

Apparently you missed the irony ("nobody needs to be warned...")  Very amusing.