Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RSL on May 10, 2012, 06:01:14 pm
-
Normally I tell anyone I catch shooting flower pictures that he's wasting his time and should find himself a seed catalog with pictures by pros who shoot flowers all day long. But I couldn't resist this one in St Charles, MO. Mea culpa.
-
I shoot lots of flower pix on vacation trips. They are fun to take. But I almost never bother to process them at all. But I'll keep on taking them.
This is a pleasing one, Russ.
-
This one is very nice. The juxtaposition of the elements and their colours makes the scene come to life.
JMR
-
Man! I'm no fan of flower shots, but there's an emotional relationship between that old house and those flowers that sneaks up after a moment or two of viewing and grabs you by the heart. I'd swear the two of 'em are old friends who've seen a lot together.
-
Russ
That one was well worth making an exception for. I like it a lot. It is also a very good example of a picture where the colours are an essential part of the composition, and it would lose all its impact in momochrome. A great pallette - cool gray, a white window frame, and the complex reds of the roses.
Nice one!
John
-
Now, is this more an example of old friends dropping in for a chat (Just curious thread), or do each of you who've responded to this image see a truly lovely photograph?
Perhaps my eyes are a bit dead after looking at high school student work for the last 18 years; or that I have not been able to do any real serious shooting in a number of years due to preparing for each school term, but whatever the reason, this image would be sent back to the darkroom or the computer monitor (depending on process). It is out of square, the red roses in the middle foreground are slightly overblown, there are some distortion issues which haven't been addressed and to me, it needs some serious cropping (more focus on the right 2/3's).
I certainly can appreciate the emotional attachment and relationship between the house and the flower, and I am quite the avid flower shooter and like many of the others on here, only process about 1% of all I shoot, but I find this shot pretty much in that ho-hum category.
Geeze, talk about how to not make friends... ::)
I'm retiring in 18 days. I promise I'll get better.
-
Now, is this more an example of old friends dropping in for a chat (Just curious thread), or do each of you who've responded to this image see a truly lovely photograph?
Perhaps my eyes are a bit dead after looking at high school student work for the last 18 years; or that I have not been able to do any real serious shooting in a number of years due to preparing for each school term, but whatever the reason, this image would be sent back to the darkroom or the computer monitor (depending on process). It is out of square, the red roses in the middle foreground are slightly overblown, there are some distortion issues which haven't been addressed and to me, it needs some serious cropping (more focus on the right 2/3's).
I certainly can appreciate the emotional attachment and relationship between the house and the flower, and I am quite the avid flower shooter and like many of the others on here, only process about 1% of all I shoot, but I find this shot pretty much in that ho-hum category.
Geeze, talk about how to not make friends... ::)
I'm retiring in 18 days. I promise I'll get better.
once
You won't; boredom will creep onto your life amd the things you used as escapism will turn to little in the grander scheme of things. That's why few live into their pensions for very long...
(How not to make friends Mk. ll)
;-)
Rob C
P.S. For your sake, hope I'm mistaken, as I often am.
-
I've spent the better part of two years trying to learn digital photography better and I am already a fairly accomplished alternative processes printer. I just bought a 19' Scamp fifth wheel ttrailer that I will pull behind a smalll V-6 pickup and I plan to shoot every state in the US and most of Canada. I may so some shows along the way, visit lots of old friends and sit awhile in one place, but shrivel, drivel and non-doing will not be on my agenda. Anyway, this is my second retirement.
-
It is out of square, the red roses in the middle foreground are slightly overblown, there are some distortion issues which haven't been addressed and to me, it needs some serious cropping (more focus on the right 2/3's).
I certainly can appreciate the emotional attachment and relationship between the house and the flower, and I am quite the avid flower shooter and like many of the others on here, only process about 1% of all I shoot, but I find this shot pretty much in that ho-hum category.
Chris, I don't want to beat this one to death because it's not the kind of thing I normally do, so I'm certainly no master of flower shooting. But I'd like to see a bit of fleshing out in your critique.
First, what do you mean by "it's out of square?" I see a slight perspective shift because the camera was pointed slightly down instead of being held absolutely level, but do you see any other distortion issues? (I assume that by "issues" you mean "problems.")
Second, please define "overblown." It's possible I cranked the sharpening a bit on the high side. I often do that without thinking, because normally when I take the trouble to post-process I plan to print. On the other hand I don't see sharpening haloes in this one. It may be my 82-year-old eyes.
Finally, instead of opining that the picture needs cropping, how about doing what Slobodan normally does and demonstrate what you mean by posting your crop. To me the picture would seem out of balance with part of the windows gone, but a good demo might change my mind.
With respect to your opinion that this picture falls into the ho-hum category, I'd go further and tell you that to me, virtually all flower pictures fall into the ho-hum category, which makes me wonder why you're an "avid flower shooter."
-
Rus,
I suspect by 'overblown', Chris might mean that the reds are possibly out of gamut — and that may well have more to do with sRGB conversion than anything you did wrong.
Rather than cropping, my inclination would have been to shoot wider so that more of the not-so-lush plant was included to give a bit of ying and yang balance. I doubt that I'd have included the ground, though, leaving the weatherboards, window and flora to make a clean and tidy statement.
But you're all so right, flower pics are nearly as ho-hum as car pics. LOL
Cheers,
W
-
I've spent the better part of two years trying to learn digital photography better and I am already a fairly accomplished alternative processes printer. I just bought a 19' Scamp fifth wheel ttrailer that I will pull behind a smalll V-6 pickup and I plan to shoot every state in the US and most of Canada. I may so some shows along the way, visit lots of old friends and sit awhile in one place, but shrivel, drivel and non-doing will not be on my agenda. Anyway, this is my second retirement.
Q.E.D.?
Rob C
-
Rus,
I suspect by 'overblown', Chris might mean that the reds are possibly out of gamut — and that may well have more to do with sRGB conversion than anything you did wrong.
Rather than cropping, my inclination would have been to shoot wider so that more of the not-so-lush plant was included to give a bit of ying and yang balance. I doubt that I'd have included the ground, though, leaving the weatherboards, window and flora to make a clean and tidy statement.
But you're all so right, flower pics are nearly as ho-hum as car pics. LOL
Cheers,
W
Can't agree with that: first you have to define the standard of both. Good ones, of either genre, can be spectacular and poor ones of either are always going to suck or be ho-humming in their own ways. So far, I haven't personally assaulted any flowers that I can think of, but the cars have certainly been subjected to some cellphone indignities! But if that heps with my digestion, eff the cars!
;-)
Rob C
-
Out of square meant it was slightly twisted in a somewhat oblique manner. It could be attributed to camera angle or lens distrotion or a combination of those. I just used a simple distortion adjustment in CS5 to "square" it back up.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7102/7177560730_3b86006b67_o.jpg)
Cropping is always a matter of taste and I've rarely ever found anyone who agrees to what is the best crop ratio. I like things a bit tighter..others prefer more loose interpretations...in any case, both of my thoughts were personal opinions and I will be the last person to want to start a war with anyone.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7245/7177560844_02fc4802cd_o.jpg)
-
Chris, what you've been teaching all these years? Accounting?
-
The light's just so damn gloomy here, I cannot find it in myself to like this photo much. The flowers are certainly nice, and it certainly feels like there should be a decent photo in there somewhere. I think this photo is within shouting distance of as good a job as could have been done with the subject. The reflections in the windows are more interesting than the flowers.
I shoot flowers too, when I am out of ideas and don't have a naked girl around. The worst case scenarios here are still pretty appealing.
-
Chris, what you've been teaching all these years? Accounting?
Each to their own.
-
Out of square meant it was slightly twisted in a somewhat oblique manner. It could be attributed to camera angle or lens distrotion or a combination of those. I just used a simple distortion adjustment in CS5 to "square" it back up.
What you did is correct the slight perspective shift that I mentioned. I do that sometimes with tall buildings, since I no longer have a view camera with swings and tilts, but I didn't think the shift in this picture warranted it. I still don't think so.
Cropping is always a matter of taste and I've rarely ever found anyone who agrees to what is the best crop ratio.
Yes, cropping always is a matter of taste and my taste says the best "crop ratio" is the one that comes out of the camera. In general, if you can't frame your picture in the camera, you've screwed up. There are exceptions, and I've posted a couple recently. But generally speaking, if you can't frame your picture on the camera you need to go back and study the work of people like Cartier-Bresson, who could.
-
The light's just so damn gloomy here...
Amolitor, that's not called "gloomy" light. It's called "diffused" light.
-
Oh, my bad. It's been diffused by the sorrow of the clouds!
-
I don't generally shoot with the idea of cropping in mind, though on some occasions I know I am going to have to if I want the shot. I've spent so long working with kids who can't seem to grasp this simple concept, I've come almost to expect it in a shot...my bad and it is what I want to spend the next year undoing.
For Slobodan, what have I been teaching? hmmmm, these are from students who've held a camera in their hands for less than 14 weeks. Only one had ever shot anything before this class...These are students who range in age from 15-18 with the majority in the 16-17 age group. Of the ones presented, only two are seniors. I think I do pretty well with them compositionally and exposure wise, given I rarely get them for more than 18 weeks. In the 18 weeks, they have to shoot film, digital and do alterative processes plus get a firm foundation in photographic history.
The hard part for these poor babies is they have to do a six image interpretation of a word I choose (every 4 1/2 weeks the word changes), compare and contrast their images with works of other known photographers (some old, some contemporary), learn to shoot and process in RAW and image edit in CS4. I have them for 7 hours per week, 18 weeks total, two of which are designated for AICE testing or AICE prepatory work.
What I really teach is how to extrapolate, synthesize and odd as it may be, to think and work a problem to a successful conclusion.
Some of the words in this set of works are; Curious, Time-Honored, Horizon, Transparent, Parallel, Direction, Film, Diversity, Clarity, Hallucenation, and Dead. The last two are from two advanced students.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7120/6969737578_f55bb0d1ec_z.jpg)
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8147/6960451832_5c869ef67b_c.jpg
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7255/7091129543_5aaa8d9650_c.jpg)
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5443/6942024834_592d245b21_c.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7273/7038944501_dcd709b753_c.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7042/7037297445_db12f27484_c.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7067/7024441423_59f0ee5c0d_c.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7070/6967442247_59014479be_c.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7067/6923439887_0b85e0c650_z.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7037/6813323078_d3c9b99e5b_c.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7197/6775805642_63ccf5c6eb_z.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7209/6916724977_c2d81e8162_z.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7245/7178499680_6a5063272b_c.jpg)
-
Good stuff, Chris. I love it. I especially like the fact that you're exposing them to the masters. I run into too many would-be photographers who think they can't learn anything from pics by those old, often dead guys.
-
Thanks. I am quite proud of my students.
I have two Dorothea Langes reproduced from the original negatives done by Jon Cone http://www.piezography.com/PiezoPress/ that I use frequently in class. I also have a nice collection of photographs I've collected over the years from many of the old masters including Harry Callahan, Imogene Cunningham and a stray Ansel Adams or two. By the time I'm finished with these kids, they know who did what, when, how and why. Fortunately for them, because I also teach the "old" processes, many of them can experience the frustrations of doing Albumen, Salt and Kallitype processes. The last image in this series is a Platinum/Palladium print that measures 10" x 10" printed on Arches Platine.
-
Chris, before you get totally riled up with my flippant reference to accounting, let me explain. I figured you are not teaching it.
My background, however, has been in financial management (quite close to accounting). I also teach occasionally at a college level (business classes). So, whatever meaning I had in mind with my accounting/teaching remark, it affects me as well.
You see, being anal-retentive is an asset (pardon the pun) for accountants. Perfectionism, crossing the t's and dotting the i's, having everything balanced, straight, accounted for, all ducks in a row, etc.
Similar thing goes for teaching: we have to explain things at their basic level, simplify, dumb down if you will, textbook style. Especially at the entry level. Correcting our students' work is part of our job. And now do we correct? Based on those same textbook rules we teach.
I often catch myself trying to straighten every line in an image, "square" it, correct distortion, etc. Then I slap myself silly, as I recognize it is the anal-retentive accountant in me speaking. Not every picture benefits from everything straightened and squared up. Nor is life so. Leaving some imperfections is a sign of real life (and a healthy one, may I add).
It takes one to recognize one. That is why I've been against some of your critiques, especially in this thread. I found them too didactic and formulaic, and, sorry to bring it up again, anal. The same goes for Oscar's, in another thread.
I teach business differently at a college level than I discuss it with my peers, business school classmates and professors. I teach it differently when I volunteer in high schools. Again, context matters. Hence, I do not see the point in providing a critique to an 82-year old (in his own counting) accomplished photographer, delivered in the same way you would teach a teenage neophyte.
So, when I look at his work, I do not go for imperfections and technicalities, I know he got that covered. I go for emotions, memories, personal meaning. And that is what his roses image exudes. I also know his stance on cropping, so, while I would have perhaps cropped it differently, I respect the way he did it - it reflects his view of the scene, not mine.
-
Point taken, and as I have marked in my own moments of remiss, I am desperately trying to get into a state of unlearning, of student manufactured bad habits (which do have to be corrected) and my own allowance of some of these rather anal manifestations. I am not riled up in the sense of being angry, more so in perhaps defending what so many other high school photography teachers are readily conceding: mediocrity.
For all the years I have been teaching this wonderful art form, more of my students who come back to visit thank me more for teaching them to learn there is more than one way to solve a problem, than for teaching them photography. That said, I have had 370 students graduate from quite impressive art schools (SCAD, Pratt, RISD, Ringling, etc) with majors in photography. My desire has always been to keep the art alive. I think I have done my fair share.
Learning, for me will never stop. It is why I joined this forum. Bear with me..I shall get better. :)
-
Me? The last thing I'd do is try to get the house plumb; a close second-to-last would be choosing undiffused over diffused light. To me, the story is in the sag that once was square, the soft that once was sharp. It's about old wood under newer paint; too-bright blooms trying to distract you from the dead ones; drooping leaves in the corner like a Greek chorus: a story of old friends who've seen better years, trying to look good for the camera.
And who's inside? Reflections and shapes seen through old screens make you wonder.
My $.02
-
Again, context matters. Hence, I do not see the point in providing a critique to an 82-year old (in his own counting) accomplished photographer, delivered in the same way you would teach a teenage neophyte.
So, when I look at his work, I do not go for imperfections and technicalities, I know he got that covered. I go for emotions, memories, personal meaning. And that is what his roses image exudes. I also know his stance on cropping, so, while I would have perhaps cropped it differently, I respect the way he did it - it reflects his view of the scene, not mine.
Slobodan, that is one of the most sensible things that anyone has said around here in a very long time. And it demostrates perfectly why you need to take time to get to know people on an Internet forum, just as in real (non -virtual) life.
John
-
John, before you know it, you might find yourself assimilated within the deeper parts of the secret club or clique, heaven protect you! (Don't forget the great advice from the late Brother Marx re. clubs and invitations.)
;-)
Rob C
-
Q.E.D.?
Rob C
Well, yeah, I guess you got me there... ;D
-
So, when I look at his work, I do not go for imperfections and technicalities, I know he got that covered. I go for emotions, memories, personal meaning. And that is what his roses image exudes. I also know his stance on cropping, so, while I would have perhaps cropped it differently, I respect the way he did it - it reflects his view of the scene, not mine.
Thanks, Slobodan, but please don't stop suggesting and demonstrating corrections and mods to the stuff I post here. Actually, having gotten to know you a bit, I realize I don't need to say that. Though I often disagree with your suggestions, it was less than a year ago that you opened my eyes to some points about landscape that ended up turning a fairly so-so shot of South Park into something I hung in a public passageway in Florida this year.
Let's not forget that the whole point of having a "user critiques" section is to teach and to learn.
-
Let's not forget that the whole point of having a "user critiques" section is to teach and to learn.
Right on!
Thank you, Russ, Chrisc, and Slobodan for making this a great thread!
Eric
-
I would argue the crop is not only not better, but conveys a completely different feel for the image. The tight crop strikes a formal balance and emphasizes the roses, but does not convey the feel of the overall scene nor the flow of the rose bushes, both important aesthetic consderations. In my mind, why you took the shot and what it conveys is more important than cropping or minor tilts in horizonal lines. One would never bring this up in the slide days. You get what you get. Digital may be the future, but for now it has made us hypercritical because of the "new tools."
JMR