Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: armand on August 28, 2012, 10:45:40 pm
-
Flying. Shot tonight at dusk.
-
Armand -
You put this in the critique section so I'll go with that.
The image is underexposed, it appears to not have adequate focal length, it's not well focused, and I find myself interested in what you see in this that I'm not seeing. The title I'm curious about as well "flying." Birds fly. This doesn't appear to be the birds first flight or any significant event which might warrant a title that would otherwise be considered obvious.
I think with an image like this you might want to tell us what you were trying to achieve so we have a perspective starting point. If you'd told us this was captured with a home made pinhole camera while running down a hill and jumping over rocks then I'd say it was a great shot considering the circumstances. But other than it being "dusk" there are none.
Help us out..
-
For a second, I asked myself if it was a bird or something else (kite, rc plane). I cannot see the concept. It could be about silhouetted bird against the sky or blurred flying bird. I can imagine this image a starting for other images that have a stronger concept… so don't give up and tell us what you had on your mind.
-
Hmmmmmmmm, it has a bit of a Haiku feel to it. Not sure it requires any great thought as much as an immersion into allowing simplicity and feeling rule the scene, rather than "preciseness" and "correctness."
-
Hmmmmmmmm, it has a bit of a Haiku feel to it.
A bird above him
Wind beneath its static wings
Crapped on his bald head
-
A bird above him
Wind beneath its static wings
Crapped on his bald head
ROFLMAO - sorry, while at first I found this somewhat humorous, I think my original thought is more from the intelligent side of me and this a bit too sophomoric, even for my slightly warped mind. I like Armand's explanation below. Some things, it appears, just are.
-
A photo shouldn't require much explanation and the efforts or the methods don't matter, only the final result.
But what chrisc said first goes quite well with my intention.
I was trying to reduce the idea of a bird in flight to the bare essentials, and the moment of the day added to the mood.
A perfectly exposed bird and sharp bird would have been one in millions of similar shots and wouldn't have added anything to what I was trying to get here. And if you think the haiku reference is a stretch, take a look at this: http://tearsandlaughterat90.blogspot.com/2012/06/bird-named-haiku-1.html
The compact camera (slower focus, higher exposure) made it even less clear than I thought it will be but I like it this way more as you can't say for sure what it is.
If it works it's a different story, but the shot is quite close to what I wanted.
PS. I just needed a title one in order to post so don't think about it more than needed
PPS. and if you don't like it underexposed I added a version with 2 extra stops
-
A bird above him
Wind beneath its static wings
Crapped on his bald head
Please tell me you wrote this one yourself, Russ!
Jeremy
-
Took all of thirty seconds Jeremy.
-
A photo shouldn't require much explanation and the efforts or the methods don't matter, only the final result.
Ok ... for me ... fail.
-
Took all of thirty seconds Jeremy.
I was planning on letting in go because it's not worth it but it seems you are quite proud of the crap that you wrote. Probably you are too far from the elementary education.
Ok ... for me ... fail.
Would you mind telling me why, if you can? You don't like the concept or the execution?
-
I like it, in its original form. I can't quite say *why* I like it, but you managed to place the elements (element?) fortuitously. The dark mottled look suits it well, I think. It supports the air of "seen dimly, as through some obstructing medium" I feel.
-
Would you mind telling me why, if you can? You don't like the concept or the execution?
I guess the concept is ok ... I took a somewhat similar shot myself this year ...
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/315600_10150868189315224_1480353313_n.jpg)
But this doesn't speak to me at all .... just a blurry splotch on a field of grey. Hardly looks like a bird at all and doesn't give me any real sense of motion or flying.
Looks like a stain from a black indelible marker left on a piece of paper with the cap off.
-
I guess the concept is ok ... I took a somewhat similar shot myself this year ...
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/315600_10150868189315224_1480353313_n.jpg)
Looks like a stain from a black indelible marker left on a piece of paper with the cap off.
In a similar sense I dare say that the colour version could be a pot of tea spilt across the paper with a couple of blotches of tea leaves.
-
I like the second lighter version, Armand. It's like I'm dreaming of flying.
Sharon
Thank you, you actually gave me a very good idea for a title ;)
Overall the concept is quite close to what I would like to do more but I'm either too lazy or I don't have the time. This is one concept is dear to me. I had a shot in the past on a similar token: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=47857.msg398381#msg398381 . Somebody suggested Michael Kenna and I do find a lot of his photos resonate with me. Either way, critique of the concept is unlikely to change how I feel about it.
The reason I put the photo here is because I'm much more open on the comments about the execution and I thank you all for the comments referring to the photo.
Dare I say I'm pleased that I got controversial reactions as in my mind the more controversial a photo is the better, probably is closer to actual art than most of the nice shot photos.
-
I guess the concept is ok ... I took a somewhat similar shot myself this year ...
But this doesn't speak to me at all .... just a blurry splotch on a field of grey. Hardly looks like a bird at all and doesn't give me any real sense of motion or flying.
Looks like a stain from a black indelible marker left on a piece of paper with the cap off.
The fact that you also panned makes it quite difficult to focus on the 2 birds. I was trying to find a similar shot as yours but with less color which made focus on the birds easier but can't find it. I did however find the attached shot which is more classic and more likely to please, and I found a lot of forgotten photos that deserve my attention and I thank you for this.
-
In a similar sense I dare say that the colour version could be a pot of tea spilt across the paper with a couple of blotches of tea leaves.
As I said ... I took a somewhat simiar shot this year ...
As an aside ... While it was not a truly successful shot, the colors are MUCH more interesting when printed from a wide-gamut source.
It was an unplanned shot, but it lead me to think deeply about intentional camera movements ... Which lead to a very much planned and successful shot a few months later on the beach at sunset in Anguilla ...
-
A photo shouldn't require much explanation and the efforts or the methods don't matter, only the final result.
But what chrisc said first goes quite well with my intention.
I was trying to reduce the idea of a bird in flight to the bare essentials, and the moment of the day added to the mood.
A perfectly exposed bird and sharp bird would have been one in millions of similar shots and wouldn't have added anything to what I was trying to get here. And if you think the haiku reference is a stretch, take a look at this: http://tearsandlaughterat90.blogspot.com/2012/06/bird-named-haiku-1.html
The compact camera (slower focus, higher exposure) made it even less clear than I thought it will be but I like it this way more as you can't say for sure what it is.
If it works it's a different story, but the shot is quite close to what I wanted.
PS. I just needed a title one in order to post so don't think about it more than needed
PPS. and if you don't like it underexposed I added a version with 2 extra stops
1. Unfortunately it did. Virtually every response either centered on your lack of a explanation or once given.. your explanation. So I would say that's a problem with this image.
2. Says who? Is there a rule book somewhere? I suspect (with a heavy sigh) there is. But it is probably limited to a single genre. Limiting.
3. I don't see how a blurry underexposed mostly indistinguishable bird does either. I suggest you seek out others who can relate to blurry underexposed indistinguishable images. Have you tried Photosig?
4. While this shot doesn't in any way approach a Jimi Hendrix experience.. both you and the image would probably have done better in the 60's/70's..
5. Usually.. we consider the underside of a birds wings, especially when the shot focuses on the bird, as the exposure point.
I'm sorry.. but if someone totally new to photography (or blind) was asking these questions (without an explanation a fair take no?) I do my best to provide an answer which will help them in some way. But when someone so far off in the abstract is expecting equally abstract responses we can almost laugh about it. But when the attitude is taken further it's not nearly as fun. I suggest something like a warning smiley be posted at the start of such threads.. All this for a title? And no tissue either?
-
You might be well intended but the drops from the splash that you are trying are mostly coming back to you. It seems you like classic, well exposed photos. Fine, but don't think that's the only way to go and everything else is not worth it. I didn't pretend it's a piece of high art but I knew what I was doing and I got close to the concept I had in mind, and I am still happy about it.
As you could probably read (and I'm sure you did but elected to stay on your white horse) some do find some value in it.
And if you think some genres are limited to some time periods then I hope you don't discover some of your work was done already in some older foggy periods.
PS as for your point arguments read them again later and see if you still stand by them
-
I got close to the concept I had in mind, and I am still happy about it.
I'm not really sure why you posted this looking for critiques ...
-
Most of the times when I post I look for all suggestions but here, as I said before, I was looking for suggestions regarding the execution not the concept. Doesn't mean you can't critique the concept, it's just unlikely to change my opinion about it.
And of course, I was curious to see how it resonates with the others as it is after all something that I don't usually do.
-
You might be well intended but the drops from the splash that you are trying are mostly coming back to you. It seems you like classic, well exposed photos. Fine, but don't think that's the only way to go and everything else is not worth it. I didn't pretend it's a piece of high art but I knew what I was doing and I got close to the concept I had in mind, and I am still happy about it.
As you could probably read (and I'm sure you did but elected to stay on your white horse) some do find some value in it.
And if you think some genres are limited to some time periods then I hope you don't discover some of your work was done already in some older foggy periods.
PS as for your point arguments read them again later and see if you still stand by them
Armand - You posted an image here asking for a critique, an image that is so far from the mainstream, so far from anything from my experience, that I think you are either serious and really looking for help.. or maybe a child playing like poppa does. I post a reply asking for an explanation, what your were trying to accomplish, an artist your studying, anything to give us some perspective as to why we're looking at ink dots. I did this politely and with good intent.
Others post asking for virtually the same thing. Some joked, but asking at the same time for an explanation. Finally you came back with an explanation telling us that a picture doesn't require an explanation and that the efforts or methods don't matter, that the only thing which matters is the result.
But the "result" is what prompted the questions about explanation and the jokes. At least with the bigfoot genre we have a big hairy creature who might or might not be real and a back story (explanation) to compare/contrast with.
Then you finally come back telling us you weren't looking for that critique you were asking for at all.. instead you were using our responses to form your own ideas and subsequent changes to the image. Interesting.. but perhaps not an adequate explanation for those you used.
Now you try and tell me what kind of images I like.. classic well exposed.. and to leave room for other types of photography. Armand.. I was. I was asking for an explanation so I could give your attempt at photography it's fair due. I asked for and gave you every opportunity. You didn't want to provide an explanation, you really didn't even want the critique. You just wanted our reactions and for us to respond to the reactions so you could get more reactions. There's a name for this type of behavior.. starts with a t but otherwise I can't remember.
I suppose when someone posts an image for critique and very few respond we'll know why.
-
Armand -
You put this in the critique section so I'll go with that.
The image is underexposed, it appears to not have adequate focal length, it's not well focused, and I find myself interested in what you see in this that I'm not seeing. The title I'm curious about as well "flying." Birds fly. This doesn't appear to be the birds first flight or any significant event which might warrant a title that would otherwise be considered obvious.
This your first polite comment. It misses entirely the point of the photo. Did actually think I was trying to post a well exposed (hence my comment about your preferences), focused photo but I somehow got it so bad that I ended up with this and I didn't realize what I was doing and yet I posted here?
I said A photo shouldn't require much explanation and the efforts or the methods don't matter, only the final result
This means that if the photo doesn't have merits to stand on its own, an explanation or description of the efforts will not make it better. The fact that you understood what you wanted it's a different story.
Again, I assume you can read, I was looking for critique. Just not the one that you provided. And I was curious how the others feel about it even if cannot provide a critique.
That fact that you assume that I waited for the others to post so I know what to write makes me wonder if you think you are the only one in the room who can articulate, as the condescending comments that you make give me that impression. And I did give you and explanation which was true to what I wanted for the reason to help the critique. Again, I really don't care if you believe it or not.
And if you think your comments are polite while calling me a child, troll, or whatever, think again.