Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: armand on October 18, 2010, 12:04:12 am
-
I already like it, I just want to see how objective I am so go ahead with the critique.
-
Nobody? I don't bite ;D
-
Okay, I'll bite. Apart from capturing nice textures in the iquana's skin and dorsal spines, there isn't much to say about it, in my opinion. I also think that the way it's cropped is odd and doesn't make for a particularly interesting composition.
-
You could lose the top half of the photo here which, for me, would make more sense Armand. The composition presented is confusing me as I don't know where I am supposed to look.
-
Armand, What is it that you like about this image? There is a bit of a mish-mash of things going on which make it confusing for me. There's the subject matter of a lizard - with his head chopped off....and then there are wonderful colours and textures. If it is the lizard you like, why is it important that you remove his head visually?....and if it is the textures you like, i would suggest just making that the image and focus in on the back and body and not include the legs.
Julie
-
"Objective" opinions about art? I don't think so! But subjective or not, here's mine.
The foreground - branches and foot - is out of focus, and it really detracts from what is otherwise a detail-oriented closeup. Plus areas of the branches appear to be "blown" (pure white with no detail). I don't see why you excluded the head, usually the most interesting part of a critter. The brightly lit left front leg vanishes out of the frame, distracting from the composition.
Sorry to be so negative, but that's what I see. I think you have an interesting subject with great potential, but it needs more work.
Cheers,
-
Looks like we are all falling for a troll. Looks like someone decided to kill his boredom by pulling randomly an image from a trash bin and posting it, hoping there must be someone somewhere taking it seriously and seeing something "artistic" in it. So far we took it all seriously...
-
Looks like we are all falling for a troll. Looks like someone decided to kill his boredom by pulling randomly an image from a trash bin and posting it, hoping there must be someone somewhere taking it seriously and seeing something "artistic" in it. So far we took it all seriously...
Well, you're either right or you're rather harsh.
-
No, Pop. Slobodan's being right and rather harsh. Also known as being honest.
-
ok, i said go ahead not kill the messenger ;) I know about some of the flaws but the people around me who saw it (printed 19x13) like it quite a lot. However they are definitely not in the photography art so I just wanted to see how much translates in expert opinion.
The purpose of not including the head was to try to make a little more abstract, and maybe wander how the head really is after all. I thought that the diagonal branches could emphasize the back of the iguana (as they are almost parallel), that's why I didn't crop more and left them, out of focus and blown out, I actually overexposed them a little in postprocessing so it doesn't detract from the lizard. When I shot it (btw, it's uncroped), my intention was to have the spines from the back as a culmination of the textures from the back. As it seems I didn't succeed. Also like the colors.
And calling me a troll it's not honest, just unnecessary. You could just say the pictures suck according to your standards. What I am really looking for is why.
-
Armand
People around here are usually extremely diplomatic, and very polite. If someone posts a real clunker of a picture, very often there will be zero replies because nobody wants to be cruel or cause offence - especially if the poster is new to LL. If this happens to you, the best option is to let the post sink gently down the list and out of sight, because the message is clear. However, if you insist on bumping the post back up to the top, as you did, I am afraid you really are asking for an honest opinion.
Which you got.
John
-
No, Pop. Slobodan's being right and rather harsh. Also known as being honest.
Honesty and politeness are not mutually exclusive.
-
I already like it, I just want to see how objective I am so go ahead with the critique.
The skin texture looks like the over-sharpened noise that seems to be popular in portraits.
-
Honesty and politeness are not mutually exclusive.
Perhaps they are not. But they are not the easiest bedfellows either, especially when it comes to criticism. It is definitely easier to be honest with praise.
The OP broke too many rules, mostly deliberately. A wise man once said (and I wholeheartedly agree):
"... People like to say that rules are meant to be broken, but I say that rules are meant to keep the clueless from looking like idiots. Only break a rule when you're good enough to know what you're doing."
That is a very honest and powerful statement. But not very polite to the clueless.
Now I have a dilemma: who is actually harsh and impolite in this case? Me for quoting it, or the original author for penning it? *
* The author is otherwise known on this forum as "popnfresh" ;)
-
Slobodan, Touche!
-
I don't care how harsh anybody's comments are as long as they say something. If I didn't want to hear them I wouldn't have posted.
The only thing that I found unnecessary was when somebody wise stated I am a troll.
So peace to all, I'll keep asking.
-
You know, I've seen worse than that in the "recent professional works" of the MF section. Like when some post truck dealer facades or malls alley, Not a lot but it happened. And even repplies saying nice shot!
Oh, and when they spread the forum with bricks, roof or gardens pics each time a new back with more MP is coming out.
And what about the xillionth snapshots sunsets well executed, well exposed, but unpersonal and boring like hell. Does that should also deserves the congrats?
I guess the Russ's statement that "pro does not necessary means good" is true.
I basically agree with Slobodan, too many rules broken, but my point is that there are numbers of "ruled mastered" pictures that receive aprobation and shouldn't either.
-
You know, I've seen worse than that in the "recent professional works" of the MF section. Like when some post truck dealer facades or malls alley, Not a lot but it happened. And even repplies saying nice shot!
Ah Fred, so you have noticed that sometimes the Emperor has no clothes?
John
-
Ah Fred, so you have noticed that sometimes the Emperor has no clothes?
John
Oh yes John, definatly.
And I would have understood harsher criticisms in the pro section more than here in the sense that if someone submit such pic in the pro section...
-
I don't understand this world sometimes John.
Fred
This Forum actually mirrors the world quite well. What you see reflected here is simple human nature. In this section people feel free to criticise or be forthright with their opinions because the photograph has (usually) been posted by an amateur or unknown person (like myself - or yourself, for that matter). So there is no peer group opinion of the work, as yet. Whereas if a pro posts a picture, very few people would dare to criticise it other than in a very minor way, for fear of seeming foolish because, after all, this is a pro with a big reputation and everyone else thinks they are brilliant, so they must be brilliant, right?
There are some wonderful pictures posted here on LL from time to time. And there is a load of ghastly dross as well. And some of that dross makes very good money for the people who turn it out.
John
-
Funnily enough, Fred, I got caught in exactly this trap just a week or two ago. As part of an ongoing discussion in the MF section, someone posted a picture to illustrate a point they were making. It was brilliant, technically perfect, but a really appalling piece of Kitsch portraiture (in my opinion, of course).
I was just about to post some nasty scathing comment or other, when I realised to my horror that the photographer concerned was one of the really big names on the Forum (I hadn't bothered to take in the sender's name up to this point). So I quickly trashed my post and slunk off.
So you see, I'm just as bad. I don't have the courage of my own convictions.
John
-
Big names can need a virtual kick in the butt at times ....
Nonames as well ....
-
Big names can need a virtual kick in the butt at times ....
Nonames as well ....
Well, we all can, Christoph. And my apologies to Armand for highjacking his iguana post. But just see what an interesting discussion you started off, Armand . . .
John
-
Funnily enough, Fred, I got caught in exactly this trap just a week or two ago. As part of an ongoing discussion in the MF section, someone posted a picture to illustrate a point they were making. It was brilliant, technically perfect, but a really appalling piece of Kitsch portraiture (in my opinion, of course).
I was just about to post some nasty scathing comment or other, when I realised to my horror that the photographer concerned was one of the really big names on the Forum (I hadn't bothered to take in the sender's name up to this point). So I quickly trashed my post and slunk off.
So you see, I'm just as bad. I don't have the courage of my own convictions.
John
Was it one the really big names or one of the really big egos? :) ;) ;D
-
This isn't really anything new; various emperors have been spied frolicking in the altogether since time - or at least, emperors - began.
I think that what lies underneath all of this, both from the point of view of 'emperors' as well as from the viewpoint of the simple man in the street, is something altogether more fundamental.
As I see it, the problem lies in not the individual work, the ego (there should be one there, or you have no art) nor in bolshy and probably bemused viewers; the problem lies in the fact that there is so much stuff to look at, good, bad and indifferent, that the ability to discern the difference has, over time and due to saturation, all but vanished.
Look at almost any photographer's site, my own included, and you will see that there is nothing new. The same old themes, views, ideas are everywhere.
And that's the problem: everything has gone stale.
The only way forward is to find the new. But I fear it doesn't exist other than as fraud.
Rob C
-
Look at almost any photographer's site, my own included, and you will see that there is nothing new. The same old themes, views, ideas are everywhere.
And that's the problem: everything has gone stale.
Rob, Yes, there's nothing new under the sun, but that doesn't mean there aren't things that can move you, even though they're not new. I can bring up Steve McCurry's Afghan girl in my mind at will, and it always moves me even though there's nothing new about the innocence and confusion in the glance of a young girl. Same thing with the blessed surrender in HCB's "Cardinal Pacelli in Montmarte." There are too many like those for me to list here. Same thing with music. Tebaldi singing "O mio babbino caro" from Puccini's "Gianni Schicchi" can break me down any time I hear it even though I know every note. Just because something's familiar doesn't mean it's stale.
-
Right on the target Russ. Novelty, groundbreaking happens once or twice every century.
Indeed, very few are the elected in all history. I think it's more about having a personal style into the déjà vu and ultimatly art that moves you.
-
Well, we all can, Christoph. And my apologies to Armand for highjacking his iguana post. But just see what an interesting discussion you started off, Armand . . .
At least there is something interesting in this post after all. Anyway, I have this "quality" to start discussions (long and contradictory usually) often when I post on forums, so I'm used to it by now.
And a crop that although not perfect, I think it expresses a little better what I wanted to show with the first one (I hope I'm not going to add gas on the fire ;D )
-
At least there is something interesting in this post after all. Anyway, I have this "quality" to start discussions (long and contradictory usually) often when I post on forums, so I'm used to it by now.
And a crop that although not perfect, I think it expresses a little better what I wanted to show with the first one (I hope I'm not going to add gas on the fire ;D )
You've finally settled on the first thing my eye noted when I saw your OP; the red fringe that reminded me of fringe on a handbag. Ok. I'm a woman. I'm allowed.
-
And a crop that although not perfect, I think it expresses a little better what I wanted to show with the first one (I hope I'm not going to add gas on the fire ;D )
Spot-on, Armand. That is just so much better than the first version of your picture. What you have done is thought much more clearly about the elements of the image which attracted your eye to it in the first place, and removed everything which was either distracting or contributing nothing to it. Next time it would be good to achieve this in-camera, but hell, there is nothing wrong with a good crop.
John
-
"but hell, there is nothing wrong with a good crop."
John
Whew! I misread the last word at first; really must stop trying to read the monitor before my eyes are properly opened in the morning.
Russ, I can't agree with your musical analogy. To me, who can neither whistle nor sing a tune, music is a far more powerful stimulant than photography or painting. It gets right into your head and touches all sorts of buttons that pics can't. The trouble with images is that yes, though new variations are possible if not unavoidable by simple default, they seldom have much power to spur the wow! reaction; at best, we can recognize a good alternative take to a tired theme. But music - I can watch the same old video over and over again or simply have a soundtrack on whilst I work at the computer and the feeling is terrific. I may not even remember the last song/tune that the machine just played, but no matter: the pure 'friendship' that the sound can give is enough - it completes the situation. Just as it did working in a studio.
Pity you picked Afghan Girl. To me, it turned into one of the most blatant bits of exploitation ever in photographic history; wasn't even a great image, just unusual in that the expectation for Asia is brown eyes. (There's a pile of stones at the back of the garden, so nobody need bring their own.)
If we want powerful imagery, then I think we have to look at W. Eugen Smith's Pittsburgh opus. From what I've been able to see of it, that's where the power of photography actually lies: the telling of huge stories. To me, you can take all the St Ansel shots that were ever made (or sold) and they rate as nothing in comparison with the Smith epic.
So there you go: lizards or Lazarus (the latter would be newsworthy!), one good, pretty picture isn't worth squat when stood up against a great story. But as with the art, where the good stories?
Rob C
-
Whew! I misread the last word at first; really must stop trying to read the monitor before my eyes are properly opened in the morning.
Russ, I can't agree with your musical analogy. To me, who can neither whistle nor sing a tune, music is a far more powerful stimulant than photography or painting. It gets right into your head and touches all sorts of buttons that pics can't. The trouble with images is that yes, though new variations are possible if not unavoidable by simple default, they seldom have much power to spur the wow! reaction; at best, we can recognize a good alternative take to a tired theme. But music - I can watch the same old video over and over again or simply have a soundtrack on whilst I work at the computer and the feeling is terrific. I may not even remember the last song/tune that the machine just played, but no matter: the pure 'friendship' that the sound can give is enough - it completes the situation. Just as it did working in a studio.
Pity you picked Afghan Girl. To me, it turned into one of the most blatant bits of exploitation ever in photographic history; wasn't even a great image, just unusual in that the expectation for Asia is brown eyes. (There's a pile of stones at the back of the garden, so nobody need bring their own.)
If we want powerful imagery, then I think we have to look at W. Eugen Smith's Pittsburgh opus. From what I've been able to see of it, that's where the power of photography actually lies: the telling of huge stories. To me, you can take all the St Ansel shots that were ever made (or sold) and they rate as nothing in comparison with the Smith epic.
So there you go: lizards or Lazarus (the latter would be newsworthy!), one good, pretty picture isn't worth squat when stood up against a great story. But as with the art, where the good stories?
Rob C
Rob, I must say that I pretty much agree about Eugene Smith, and the "real" power of photography medium. Maybe that is why I like so much Lindberg in fashion because he tells the big story behind the genre.
What you just wrote has been a source of meditations for me recently. Sometimes I was about to give up photography because I don't get the point, the reason, why I'm keeping telling the small stories, call them images and try to enjoy or to pretend I enjoy myself with the little images I produce. In fact, I bloody don't enjoy telling the small stories and at the same time, I may have to recognise that I'm not a Smith or a Lindberg, but just another one (un)happy snapper. Am I doing photography? certainly not. I'm just doing little images that have no social, cultural, artistical impact or interest.
I saw a film maker friend recently and he shows me a short about this old woman he is filming the truth story. She goes everyday in the park and sits at the very same bench, and she writes her life. This guys his filming her life tale. She is lonely, has no one else so the only powerfull thing that drives her alive are souvenirs of her life. A very simple common life, full of repetitions, little anecdotes.
I was listening to her life story and felt completly depressed, thinking in my mind: "is that all?" What is the reason apart from basic surviving tasks. Is that all what our lifes can offer? little anecdotes of unsubstancial and irrelevant events? Am I interested in filming that? I immediatly answer that I was not interested, but the most horrible was to admit that my life, and my artistic life is exactly at the same point.
I'm pretty sure now, that if I have nothing but irrelevant stories to tell, I will give up taking photographs.
-
What you just wrote has been a source of meditations for me recently. Sometimes I was about to give up photography because I don't get the point, the reason, why I'm keeping telling the small stories, call them images and try to enjoy or to pretend I enjoy myself with the little images I produce. In fact, I bloody don't enjoy telling the small stories and at the same time, I may have to recognise that I'm not a Smith or a Lindberg, but just another one (un)happy snapper. Am I doing photography? certainly not. I'm just doing little images that have no social, cultural, artistical impact or interest.
I'm pretty sure now, that if I have nothing but irrelevant stories to tell, I will give up taking photographs.
Fred
One of the most useful pieces of advice which I have ever seen was that you should photograph what you love. Now, you should interpret that in its broadest sense - perhaps it might be better to replace "love" with that which turns you on, or concerns you deeply, or whatever. However, for a direction in art (or life) you can't go too far wrong with it. The reason that I photograph a lot of medieval parish churches, is that I love them. I like being around them. They turn me on, strange though that may be to a great number of people. The mistake that is very easy to make, is being in love with photography, and thinking that in itself is enough. You might love it, but you can't photograph photography.
John
-
Fred
OK, so here's another angle (after all, we really don't want to lose you).
Stop thinking in terms of each individual picture having to be a stand-alone masterpiece. That is almost impossible to achieve more than once or twice in a lifetime. After all, off the top of your head, name the Ansel pictures which spring straight away to mind, with their titles - four, five, maybe six, ten at a push? (No cheating or looking in books or on the web, now). And those pictures represent a lifetime's work. Or in painting, name Vincent's greatest without looking them up.
A very good motivator is to work in themes instead. That is, where each picture forms part of a group which tells a story, and where they are meant to be viewed together, not singly. The theme could all be shot in a single day, or over the course of many months. But there must be some unifying element. My little set of snaps of the Tregony Show on the MF section is an example of that approach (and I do love shows). I have a number of these themes going at the moment, and they do keep me motivated.
John
-
Fred
The website problem is different for each photographer. For some, it is an up-to-date record/advertisemnt of what they do, where they are allowed to put up their feet and with whom they can sometimes go to bed. For others, such as moi, it's more of a sentimental journey back to happier times. That's why, for example, I started the Biscuit Tin section, which hasn't much to do with paid work at all, but is intended as a repository for new, self-motivated photography. Were I starting to design the content again, now, I would perhaps put it all into slightly different folders, but I'm not going to do that, believe me - I'm not fast at these things anyway, and perhaps it's nice to be different.
But that brings us to the thing that John mentioned: themes. I thought I'd be doing something like that when Biscuit was in my mind; in the event, I realise that themes are part (for me) of professional life; that without that drive towards a target, I can't motivate very well, if at all. I have set up such an experiment and await response from commerce. With business interest, I would pull out all the stops to pull it off; without it, I'd probably just end up having a holiday and thinking myself better off at home.
Perhaps that's a problem associated with pro snappers; amateurs only ever need please themselves. Which, unfortunately, makes me wonder if I am not now living the sin you mentioned: being in love with photography rather than with making images. I doubt it, otherwise where would the urge to become a photographer have taken root? But still, no commission does seem to correlate with no pictures, either.
Rob C
-
Pity you picked Afghan Girl. To me, it turned into one of the most blatant bits of exploitation ever in photographic history; wasn't even a great image, just unusual in that the expectation for Asia is brown eyes. (There's a pile of stones at the back of the garden, so nobody need bring their own.)
Rob, I agree about the exploitation, but I don't agree with the idea that the only thing striking about that picture is the girl's green eyes. I give a lecture on photographers and the impact of photography once or twice a winter while I'm in Florida, and I use the Afghan girl to illustrate exactly that point. Using PowerPoint, first I show the picture as McCurry shot it. Next, I show the girl with brown eyes. The picture's just as powerful even though the contrast between the girl's eyes and her red shawl is gone. Finally I show it in black and white. In my own estimation the B&W version is more powerful than the original, and the majority of the audience seems to agree. What matters in that picture is the kid's haunted look. Here's something similar that I did in Vietnam. The kid's in the middle of a war, and some of that is reflected from her face. It's not as good as Steve's girl, but it captures something of the haunting uncertainty of a child in that kind of situation.
If we want powerful imagery, then I think we have to look at W. Eugen Smith's Pittsburgh opus. From what I've been able to see of it, that's where the power of photography actually lies: the telling of huge stories. To me, you can take all the St Ansel shots that were ever made (or sold) and they rate as nothing in comparison with the Smith epic.
I certainly can't disagree about Gene Smith's Pittsburgh photographs. I don't think Gene had both oars in the water, but his work was very, very powerful, perhaps because of that. I also agree about Ansel -- in comparison with Gene Smith and in comparison with a dozen other photographers I can name.
-
On the risk to say an heresy and being burn alive on the public place, I never understood the great genius, almost cult attributed to Ansel Adams.
To me, Smith is frankly in another league.
John, do you know about "L'encyclopédie médievale" from Viollet le Duc.
Don't know if exists an english version but it is really a complete and complex and titanic work on the middle ages. All aspects are treated with of course a foucus on arquitecture.
I have one edition that weights like a truck, and if you can find it, it's worth every single page. The editior is George Bernage.
-
On the risk to say an heresy and being burn alive on the public place, I never understood the great genius, almost cult attributed to Ansel Adams.
To me, Smith is frankly in another league.
Comparing Gene Smith and Ansel Adams is like comparing apples and oranges. Their work is in different genres, but IMO they're both great within those genres.
-
From Rob:
... The trouble with images is that... they seldom have much power to spur the wow! reaction;... one good, pretty picture isn't worth squat when stood up against a great story...
And Fred:
... I'm just doing little images that have no social, cultural, artistical impact or interest...
Rob and Fred,
What are you talking about guys!? Pictures have no power!?
Just take the example of this thread: one (crappy) picture inspired you to respond with profound musing on life and art, from rediscovering nihil novi sub sole, to reexamining the purpose of life (in general) and your career (in particular). I guess that would make Armand a true artist, no? :D :D :D
-
What are you talking about guys!? Pictures have no power!?
Just take the example of this thread: one (crappy) picture inspired you to respond with profound musing on life and art, from rediscovering nihil novi sub sole, to reexamining the purpose of life (in general) and your career (in particular). I guess that would make Armand a true artist, no? :D :D :D
I have no idea whether Armand is a "true artist" or not. I wouldn't presume to judge the man on the basis of one photo. All artists, even "true" ones, can make sub-standard art.
-
Beautiful post, Slobodan, you have proved that clever editing can change meaning so easily! ;-) Glad I'm not a politician.
But, you do have a devilish sense of humour, nonetheless, can't deny you that!
Fred, have you not got the possibility of shooting pics with some of the models you meet on the job? Even the agencies must have enough interest in getting fresh blood into the system. I can think of no other way into the business other than getting yourself a good 'book' and then working it to death every day. Of course, if you came to Palma to do that, you would end up putting bullets into peoples' heads in frustration, assuming, of course, there was anyone to show the book to in the first place.
Have you considered Barcelona? Big scene there, as far as I know, and definitely closer to that Jurançon...
Admitting one's 'averageness' is certainly not a step anyone should take: everybody starts off more or less like that, but you have to believe you are better than all those guys at the top. If you don't believe in you, why should anybody else?
Rob C
-
Fred
Yes, I suppose that's always going to be a problem - those star girls are probably only in it for the money now... should have met them before they became famous, but surely using the others that have got as far as being accepted by a big agency won't do you harm and will raise your own game that much higher each time (as well as getting you better known to the agents). If they are anything like young starters anywhere ese I know about, then they won't expect money, just experience and pictures for their books.
http://www.ericjlyman.com/adageglobal.html
The above tells the story of a 'forgotten'? giant - pair of giants.
Remember him well, and also the images.
Rob C
-
Just take the example of this thread: one (crappy) picture inspired you to respond with profound musing on life and art, from rediscovering nihil novi sub sole, to reexamining the purpose of life (in general) and your career (in particular). I guess that would make Armand a true artist, no?
You just can't let go, can you? Maybe it will help if you say what's eating you exactly, instead of quoting. Don't worry, I don't consider myself an artist either, I don't have time for that. But it's interesting how people can extrapolate from such small pieces (such as the initial picture) and make such peremptory judgements about things much more complex.
-
Fred
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hINdvTmbRpM
It should give you a feeling for a whole load of music that will make the 'empty studio blues' so much sweeter ;-)
Works for me every night...
Rob C
-
Fred
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hINdvTmbRpM
It should give you a feeling for a whole load of music that will make the 'empty studio blues' so much sweeter ;-)
Works for me every night...
Rob C
Rob,
It worked! Much sweeter. What music can do to you.
-
Criticism is one thing, ad hominem attacks are something else.
-
You just can't let go, can you? Maybe it will help if you say what's eating you exactly, instead of quoting. Don't worry, I don't consider myself an artist either, I don't have time for that. But it's interesting how people can extrapolate from such small pieces (such as the initial picture) and make such peremptory judgements about things much more complex.
Chillax man! :)
I was just trying to insert a bit of (devilish?) humor into the forum, and tease everybody a little. I firmly believe we all need to take most things less seriously (are you listening, popnfresh? ;)). And I hope you did notice not one, but three smilies at the end of the post.
Definitely nothing personal...whatever jabs I trade on these forums, it is for rhetorical purposes only. If anything, I admire your willingness to ask for criticism and take it graciously even when harsh (as, I admit, mine is). And I can not help it but have respect for someone using words that make me reach for a dictionary (peremptory, really!?) :)
Also, not everything I say applies directly to you... I tend to make general statements along the way, digressions, hyperboles, etc.
Having all those disclaimers above, and since you asked repeatedly for it, here is what is "eating me" regarding your initial image (and images like that - too many of which are appearing on the forum as of recently):
To start: a lot of members on the forum lived and worked in a pre-digital and pre-Internet era (myself included). It occurred to me that in that era, images like that most likely would have never been displayed publicly (other than to friends and family).
There were only two ways for public access: publishing in a magazine or book, and displaying it at an exhibition (be it of international standing or a local club one). Both ways include some kind of jurying, some kind of triage, filtering before an image reaches public. Images that were poorly composed, out of focus, and overexposed (for no good reason), had very little, if any chance, to be selected. So, when something did reach the public, it already had a certain "seal of approval". Furthermore, it took considerable effort and resources to prepare images for publication and submit them. Unless you wanted to risk your original transparency, you needed to make a decent copy (a problem in itself), pack it well, go to the post office, etc.
So, the effort and resources needed, plus knowing you will be judged seriously, meant for us that we would need to think twice before attempting to go public with our work. The only way to deal with that was to learn beforehand what tools those who would judge our work would use to evaluate it. So we hit the library, attended courses, joined a camera club, and learned about composition, technique, art, perception, etc. For years, sometimes. Consequently, we had to exercise a fair amount of self-restraint, and when we finally submitted something, we did not have to ask the world "what's wrong with my image"... we knew it already (at least the elementary stuff).
Enter the digital/Internet era: after a (shutter) click, with all those wi-fi memory cards, Kodak's Share buttons, various other cameras with direct access to Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, etc., it might take literally seconds and costs absolutely nothing, before an image is displayed to millions. Anyone can post anything to everyone. No triage, filtering, self-restraint... nada. Hence this deluge of crappy, mediocre, or technically correct, but just plain boring images, creating what psychologists call a "visual noise", on a scale never seen before. And no, I am not an Internet Luddite... just pointing out certain unintended consequences.
Next, let me tell you what I think about your initially posted image in more detail.
Lets start with your stated intentions (emphases mine):
The purpose of not including the head was to try to make a little more abstract, and maybe wander how the head really is after all. I thought that the diagonal branches could emphasize the back of the iguana (as they are almost parallel), that's why I didn't crop more and left them, out of focus and blown out, I actually overexposed them a little in postprocessing so it doesn't detract from the lizard. When I shot it (btw, it's uncroped), my intention was to have the spines from the back as a culmination of the textures from the back. As it seems I didn't succeed. Also like the colors.
Intentions and chosen methods of delivering them should be aligned, not clashing.
If, by eliminating the head, you wanted it more abstract, then other reality clues, (legs, branches, a green blade of grass), should have been eliminated too (which you did in your re-posted image).
"...maybe [let the viewer] wander how the head really is after all..." Creating a bit of a mystery in an art work is a legitimate tool that engages the viewer and allows him to interact with the art by inserting his ideas, views and feelings. But there is no mystery in how an iguana head "really is". Anyone who recognized the creature as an iguana already knows.
Emphasizing the back of the iguana by including (almost parallel) branches: the key word here is "almost". For emphasis to work, branches should be quite parallel, as only then they would create a visual repetitive pattern (rhythm). In reality, only the closest branch (the most out-of-focus one) is almost parallel. Ultimately, being so out-of-focus and non-parallel, branches definitely more distract than emphasize.
Deliberately overexposing, "so it doesn't detract from the lizard": it is a standard assumption of any perception theory that the lightest part of an image are the first to attract attention, thus actually detracting from the lizard. Once again, the chosen method clashes with your intentions. For a good reading on perception theories, check Prof. Zakia's textbook "Perception and Imaging".
And finally, a comment about your re-posted image: parts of the skin texture (scales) appear overexposed too. That is a result of the harsh light in which you originally took the picture (see, even the sun is harsh to you :)). Three ways to deal with it: a polarizer, or a diffusing screen placed between the sun and the lizard, or recovering highlights in post-processing.
I hope this helps.. and no hard feelings.
-
Enter the digital/Internet era: after a (shutter) click, with all those wi-fi memory cards, Kodak's Share buttons, various other cameras with direct access to Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, etc., it might take literally seconds and costs absolutely nothing, before an image is displayed to millions. Anyone can post anything to everyone. No triage, filtering, self-restraint... nada. Hence this deluge of crappy, mediocre, or technically correct, but just plain boring images, creating what psychologists call a "visual noise", on a scale never seen before. And no, I am not an Internet Luddite... just pointing out certain unintended consequences.
Bingo.
And this is generalized, as I pointed also in the MF section and the pro works. John mentionned a very true dilema when you see an image that you'd like to criticize and suddenly realise that it came from a super star. But there's a difference in the sense that we know their books, what they capable of, so even if they post an image that is not interesting at least there is very little to say about the execution.
About this section, I find myself between a rock and a hard place or a double-edged sword (I got it now! Thanks Slobodan). It's a good section but it could be better. I also posted in Lu-La from time to time some pretty good peices of garbage, like the "urban dogs" recently, completly shaked but I know it and then my goal is always humoristic or provocative within a context.
Now, I really think that a big part of the imagery that's uploaded in this section shouldn't either, following the Slobodan's statement above. If people (we) could be a little harder with them(our)selves, and think twice and if also critics could send a little less approvals on images that are really what Rob would qualify a waiste of time and where the comments are: great, nice or to-crop-or-not-to-crop-that-is-the-question, this section could be much more interesting IMO.
-
Criticism is one thing, ad hominem attacks are something else.
With a hat like that, I'd be careful about the bars I enter.
More ad hominems would be pretty certain to follow - really real ones!
;-)
Rob C
-
Slobodan, Bravo! Keep on telling the truth. There's not enough of that on here. "I like it" doesn't tell anyone anything worth knowing. "Doesn't do anything for me" tells even less. "The steeple's not straight" is redundant if the picture's visible.Yet this is the kind of "criticism" that makes up at least 90% of the responses to the stuff that appears in User Critiques. Sometimes "I like it" is justified. Pictures do get posted here about which all you really can say is "ahhh," but very rarely.
Which is not to suggest people not post the sort of thing that's bringing on meaningless responses. I'm sure most people who post that kind of picture do so in good faith, believing there's some merit in what they posted. What they need is exactly the kind of education you associated with the film era. But I question whether or not most artists who read and post on LuLa have the kind of free time it takes to be unpaid art teachers. Seems to me there are two reasonable responses to the usual tourist picture: (1) "What did plan to do with that picture once you shot it?" and (2) "Go to the bookstore and pick up a book by Cartier-Bresson, one by Ansel Adams, one by Walker Evans, and one by Robert Frank. Spend some time with the pictures in those books. Then look at your picture again and tell yourself honestly what you think of it."
-
Slobodan, Bravo! Keep on telling the truth. There's not enough of that on here. "I like it" doesn't tell anyone anything worth knowing. "Doesn't do anything for me" tells even less. "The steeple's not straight" is redundant if the picture's visible.Yet this is the kind of "criticism" that makes up at least 90% of the responses to the stuff that appears in User Critiques. Sometimes "I like it" is justified. Pictures do get posted here about which all you really can say is "ahhh," but very rarely.
Which is not to suggest people not post the sort of thing that's bringing on meaningless responses. I'm sure most people who post that kind of picture do so in good faith, believing there's some merit in what they posted. What they need is exactly the kind of education you associated with the film era. But I question whether or not most artists who read and post on LuLa have the kind of free time it takes to be unpaid art teachers. Seems to me there are two reasonable responses to the usual tourist picture: (1) "What did plan to do with that picture once you shot it?" and (2) "Go to the bookstore and pick up a book by Cartier-Bresson, one by Ansel Adams, one by Walker Evans, and one by Robert Frank. Spend some time with the pictures in those books. Then look at your picture again and tell yourself honestly what you think of it."
Russ, I think this section could really be much more elaborate in terms of critic content. But you might be right, it takes time, much more than posting gear stuff here or there. In fact, Slobodan is right when reffered to the photo clubs. I started in a photo club when I was 14, and that was the essence, oldest where following the younguest, made extremely constructive criticisms etc...those clubs don't exist any more.
There was a really friendship and helpfull spirit, everybody was in the same boat: photography for passion, for art.
Well, this section could be those photo club, it would be very very interesting if we could make this section a sort of reliable sphere where we would all agree to not saying a bravo or an harsh critism without explaining the reasons. That could be a pedagogic reference.
-
Chillax man! :)
I was just trying to insert a bit of (devilish?) humor into the forum, and tease everybody a little. I firmly believe we all need to take most things less seriously (are you listening, popnfresh? ;)). And I hope you did notice not one, but three smilies at the end of the post.
Slobo, I apologize for not being a mind reader. I can only go by what I see on the page. You may have had the best intentions, but when you accuse someone of being a troll and assume that they pulled their photo randomly out of the trash just to see peoples' reactions and you mock them as artists and punctuate it with three derisively laughing smilies and all because you hate one photo of theirs, then yes, without being able to climb into your brain to decipher what you really meant, it very much looks like you're making it personal. But in the future I will assume that you're just making a joke at their expense.
-
... But in the future I will assume that you're just making a joke at their expense.
You will also remember that I make jokes at my own expense just as easily, for example, in this thread, titled "My New Self-Portrait...":
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=43695.msg366350#msg366350
Oh, wait... isn't it the very same thread in which you implied that the ape must had been sexually attracted to me? :P
-
Can you prove that he wasn't? :D :D :D
-
And finally, a comment about your re-posted image: parts of the skin texture (scales) appear overexposed too. That is a result of the harsh light in which you originally took the picture (see, even the sun is harsh to you ). Three ways to deal with it: a polarizer, or a diffusing screen placed between the sun and the lizard, or recovering highlights in post-processing.
I hope this helps.. and no hard feelings.
It's way better. I post to forums for a while so I don't take personally (unless it's way too much).
It's true that the light wasn't that good, but it's not that overexposed as it seems. It looks like it but when I looked at the histogram I realized it's more how the color of some of the scales is, gray, than overexposure. Anyway, point taken.
I'm trying to be selective with what I ask, but with the digital era I will probably never have the selectivity you mentioned in your post. However I ask only with pictures where I actually know what I was trying to do, so a good advise will eliminate other "crappy" picture for the future ;D