Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: amolitor on May 22, 2012, 03:29:59 pm
-
This isn't my usual b&w moody conceptual stuff. Just oversaturated prettypretty!
-
Very OOF subject in foreground? Really?
Very boring background . . .
I don't understand you at all. Your critiques of other's pictures are literate, discerning, and mostly well-judged. But the pictures you post yourself seem calculated to provoke a negative response. On this one it looks as if you accidentally fired the shutter when you were walking along.
Why?
John
-
Well, the subject is the rock, for one thing.
Also, writing about photography and doing it are different things, eh?
-
Already well explained in another recent thread, by Dave:
... I believe that because this image is meant to have no meaning or cognitive connotations, that the image can therefore be assessed simply by referring to the work surrounding Barthes and the concepts of second order punctum & studium, whereby 'Connotation is a term used to refer to meanings which lie beyond denotation but are more dependent on it' (Dyer, 1992). Within semiotics, denotation and connotation are terms describing the relationship between the signifier and the signified. Connotation is widely linked with secondary meanings in the second order of signification and depends upon context and interpretation. At this stage of the language other metaphoric associations are articulated, such as links with private, personal experiences, implications and suggestions. The denotative point is exploited and used to develop a higher level of meaning; this is where the ideology is first expressed. The term 'connotation' is used to refer to the socio-culture and personal associations (ideological, emotional) of the sign. These are related to traits within the viewer such as class, cultural background, gender, age etc. 'Connotation is regarded as an analogue code' (Wilden, 1987), and is much more open to interpretation as opposed to denotation, the connotative signs are also much more polysemic. Saussure's semiological system concentrated more upon denotation, at the expense of connotation; Barthes gave his own interpretation of the model of the sign some years later. Although viewers draw on their own experiences to reach a conclusion concerning the connotative meaning, connotations are not purely 'personal' meanings; they are determined by the codes to which the interpreter has access. Everyone's belief about particular connotations may differ, when they're own educational background and knowledge is brought into play.
If the above hypothesis is indeed congruent with your intentions, then the answer becomes blatantly obvious, that the image is meant to be completely void of connotative associations, as a method of direct stimuli to the viewer's cognitive and associative beliefs and to become a priori.
But if this hypothetical statement is incongruent, then the image fails because it is unintentionally meaningless rather than intentionally void of connotative associations.
Dave
;)
-
By the by, thank you for your generous characterization of my critiques of other photographs!
-
I liked it better after clicking on it to make it bigger, which made me wonder how it would look if it filled an entire gallery wall. I also often wonder whether photographs which have been blown up to fill an entire gallery wall would look quite so impressive at "normal" size.
-
I also often wonder whether photographs which have been blown up to fill an entire gallery wall would look quite so impressive at "normal" size.
Depends whether they were impressive or whether they were just of an impressive size.
-
Since nobody else really wants to, I guess I'll take a shot at critiquing my own work. I guess that's kind of the point anyways, right? To learn to look at your own objectively?
The stone is pretty good, lots of interesting texture and color in there. It's placed tolerably well in the frame, but it feels like a little more right or left might have been better.
Overall it feels a little dark, perhaps the contrast was pushed a trifle too high? The yellow flowers in the foreground are distracting. Possibly a slightly higher angle to push them lower in the frame would have been a good choice. The colors are a bit much, a trifle of desaturation would probably help this out. Possibly a little oversharpened, the highlights seem to crackle a little more than is strictly speaking natural.
There's a moderate to weak visual center, at the small in-focus yellow flower and its shadow. There is some eye leading with the edges and cracks in the stone, but not very strong. The visual center is not particularly fortuitously placed, being only a little off-center feels like a weak position, the eye has to hunt a little to settle on it. The grassy background upper left is a little busy but does work as negative space, with the exception of the distracting elements at the very top of the frame in the right hand third. Again, a slightly higher angle would have helped that.
-
Hi Amolitor,
Not sure what you hope to achieve with this thread and having now read your well written critique of your own image, I have to ask the question - why did you post the image in the first place, if you yourself find it lacking in so many ways? You cannot hope to receive meaningful feedback on such an image, when you know it has so many limitations, such as and I quote; "... weak visual center, ... not very strong, ... weak position, ... a little busy, ... distracting elements".
However, I would also suggest that you do know your stuff and can discuss photography in a most knowledgeable and erudite manner, so I can only assume you posted this image for some light entertainment and to see what reaction you would get.
Am I wrong?
Dave
-
No, that's not it at all, I wasn't posting for light entertainment at all.
The only way I can find to put in it words is to say that I cannot see my own work very well.
-
Reminds me of the all adage: those who can, do... those who can't, teach (says a guy who teaches occasionally) ;)
-
Reminds me of the all adage: those who can, do... those who can't, teach (says a guy who teaches occasionally) ;)
And to continue the adage - those who can, do... those who can't, teach and those who can't teach, teach sports..
-
Does anyone else here see any irony in posting comments reading, roughly, (forgive me some hyperbole):
"Dude, you write such helpful and insightful commentary on other people's photographs, why is your photograph so shitty?"
It's a not a terrible picture. It's just not a very strong image, but damn it, it's pretty.
-
No, it sucks.
Rob C
-
... "Dude, you write such helpful and insightful commentary on other people's photographs, why is your photograph so shitty?"...
+1 ;D
-
No, it sucks.
Rob C
NO U!
-
Well.. interesting thread. I feel baited.
Instead of critiquing the negative aspects of this image, instead I'll concentrate on the positive aspects and one interesting aspect:
The interesting aspect is the rock looks like a bears head. Or maybe some other creature. Other than that there are no redeeming qualities in this rock as a subject imo.
The positive aspect is the lighting. I love it. Yet, without a subject is light enough? Obviously not.
I'm not sure I'll ever understand this 'fine art' stuff. Look at the picture of the weeds on the sites front page. Why? If I was going to use bokeh as a compositional element then I'd use a lens which renders attractive bokeh and not the rough bokeh of this lens. Or maybe that's the reason for the photo, to show the negative aspects of that particular lens. Or maybe it's a game "hide the focal point?" I dunno.. it's probably me and my inability to 'get it' where fine art reigns.
-
.. it's probably me and my inability to 'get it' where fine art reigns.
For me when assessing my own work, it is a very simple rule that qualifies or should that be quantifies what is 'Fine Art' in photographic terms and that is - would a total stranger with no emotional attachment to me, be sufficiently moved to buy my work so they can spend more time appreciating it?
Yes I know creating images for financial gain is akin to prostituting out our artistic souls, but artists having been doing this forever and if anyone else can come up with a more black and white definition of just what is a 'Fine Art' image, then please tell me.
Oh and before you rip into this premise, let me also qualify that this does not preclude images that do not sell, nor those that you enjoy for yourself, they may also be 'Fine Art', all I am saying is how can we know that for sure, if nobody wishes to look at them or own them?
This is a subject that has been beaten to death on many forums over the years, so maybe we should leave it to rest in peace, as this is simply my thoughts on the matter - rightly or wrongly ;)
Dave
-
This isn't my usual b&w moody conceptual stuff. Just oversaturated prettypretty!
The light is quite nice but what is it you liked about the subject enough to photograph and share it?
-
For me when assessing my own work, it is a very simple rule that qualifies or should that be quantifies what is 'Fine Art' in photographic terms and that is - would a total stranger with no emotional attachment to me, be sufficiently moved to buy my work so they can spend more time appreciating it?
Yes I know creating images for financial gain is akin to prostituting out our artistic souls, but artists having been doing this forever and if anyone else can come up with a more black and white definition of just what is a 'Fine Art' image, then please tell me.
Oh and before you rip into this premise, let me also qualify that this does not preclude images that do not sell, nor those that you enjoy for yourself, they may also be 'Fine Art', all I am saying is how can we know that for sure, if nobody wishes to look at them or own them?
This is a subject that has been beaten to death on many forums over the years, so maybe we should leave it to rest in peace, as this is simply my thoughts on the matter - rightly or wrongly ;)
Dave
I couldn't do that when I find myself agreeing with you. Not because of the monetary value of an image, but because in our society 'value' is expressed in monetary terms. At least among the regular folks not steeped in the genre. So it makes perfect sense. And.. I can think back on the sale of my own images, portraits, weddings, landscapes, events.. what makes people buy one image over the other is varied.. but that they want to buy it is key. I'm often surprised at how well some of my images do, and disappointed by how poorly others do which I like much better. I've accepted that I have no taste.. :)4
-
Well.. interesting thread. I feel baited.
Instead of critiquing the negative aspects of this image, instead I'll concentrate on the positive aspects and one interesting aspect:
+1, but a different "interesting aspect". What I like about the image is something entirely unrelated to the formal qualities which, as its creator has cogently pointed out, it largely lacks, which are understandably privileged on this site, but which I find are sometimes possessed in abundance by uninteresting images. For me it has a little bit - a very little bit - of what I call a "see the world in a grain of sand" quality. Seeing the world in a grain of sand means seeing something infinitely interesting (the world) in something not so interesting (a grain of sand). Amolitor's image gives me a small, randomly selected, unique and never-to-be-repeated window on reality in some of its abiding aspects - rocks, green things, light. The focal point for this is the flower and its shadow. I was touched in a way which I find hard to define but easy to recognise, and thought of the story about the disciple of Buddha who demonstrated his enlightenment by holding up a flower. Now of course, this quality is by no means incompatible with formal qualities, indeed it in great images it is enhanced by them, and I am not saying this is a great image - just that it pleases me in a particular way that makes the formal critique largely beside the point.