Textures & Geometry

[Todd Suttles]

I like this simply for the contrast of textures and the geometric patterns. Does it appeal to anyone else? thanks t

[drmike]

You do seem to want honesty - so nope it doesn't appeal.

Why not? There's just too much of it for me - but I do like simple and minimal so I dare say I am not representative. For me there's too much of the same thing without having the repetition bring much to the party. The tones are good, the contrast in texture and geometry is good but personally I don't feel I need to see so very much of it.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Once my photograph was critiqued as "opportunistic." It stung, but in retrospective, it made sense. What it means is you were there, saw something of interest, lifted your camera and clicked. There is little evidence that you looked for and selected something in particular, detected something more than what was in front of you, found a different angle, rearranged the elements (by moving around or framing) to denote a deliberate design you saw, etc. The intention to turn it into something more than a documentary is what is missing.

[RSL]

Slobodan's describing what I call a "tourist picture," and he's right.

Keep working at it, Todd. You're approaching it seriously and not getting hung up on equipment or technique. You've done some good work, but as HCB said, I think in a slightly different way, you need to align your heart with your eye. It's the heart that makes great photographs.

[Todd Suttles]

All of you are exactly right on the money. Opportunistic is EXACTLY how this was taken Slobodan. It is a snap shot at the end of an excursion in Montego Bay trying to impersonate a 'real' photo; but it is a tourist picture, one shot, no thought or deliberation. This was good. Thank you, t

[stamper]

This type of image should be taken and then left for a while and revisited with fresh eyes. You may initially feel it was worthy but after a while you will see it dispassionately. Then you make up your mind about it and post it and cross your fingers that someone likes it. The bottom beam, or another one, should in my opinion align with the edge of the frame to improve the geometry of the image. As it is the eye roams around it looking for something, like a bird's nest, to rest upon but there isn't anything to catch the eye's attention.

[GrahamBy]

I'll agree with the others. You saw something, which is good. You just needed the extra patience to think about how to make it into a photo with a frame, rather than just grabbing a photo that "contained" the something. Which could be useful if you were planning on doing some sort of collage... but it would also be useful to go back and imagine how you could have made the geometry stand out.

Sometimes it's obvious, but the world is awash with photos shot up or down circular stairwells... so seeing something non-obvious is definitely a good start

[luxborealis]

Although "opportunistic", I don't think that's the weakness of the image. It's not what you, it's what you do. One could argue that all art is opportunistic... (But I'll leave that one for now!)

The point is, the photograph is too straightforward, too literal, or, as one judge remarked about one of my photos, too perfect. It's what we expect, rather than encouraging us to look at it in a different way. It is also too bright.

Try rotating it about 30° or so, then darken it. This will force us to look more closely, perhaps even question it, making it more mysterious, less straightforward, less obvious.

These suggestions won't turn this one photograph into a masterpiece, but it is a helpful exercise to go through with every (or at least with greater frequency) set-up. Shoot the obvious, then rethink it, look at it from a different perspective, and try to make it unique. It won't always work, but when it does...

[Todd Suttles]

Thank you Terry. I will attempt to take this in and apply it. Appreciate you, t