Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Hekoru on September 19, 2016, 03:57:49 am
-
Hi all,
First post here on the user critiques forum. I'd love to hear your opinions on this picture:
Thanks!
Edit: Image uploaded to the forum instead of providing a Flickr link
-
I'm not sure a regular photographic analysis applies here. But it makes me smile :)
In French "Have the peach" means to be in good form, sort of the equivalent of "bright eyed and bushy tailed"... your photo seems to me to be about that kind of (almost accidental) associations, possible stories, the cardigan (??) on the chair ready to go out, or after coming home: is the peach to take and eat, or was it not eaten while out and brought back...
Good fun :)
-
Graham said it very well. I agree.
-
Graham's right. It's good fun. But it would be nice to have it here on LuLa instead of having to go to flickr.
-
Thanks for your words Graham. I'm glad you enjoyed it and found those little stories within the picture.
I'm not sure a regular photographic analysis applies here. But it makes me smile :)
I'm curious about that statement. Why wouldn't regular analysis apply?
-
Thanks for your words Graham. I'm glad you enjoyed it and found those little stories within the picture.
I'm curious about that statement. Why wouldn't regular analysis apply?
Maybe because the subject is too close to painting cliché?
Rob C
-
Fantastic image, color, composition, P.O.V., tonality...kudos /B
-
By the way, Hek, welcome to LuLa. That's a great first post. Let's see more.
-
Maybe because the subject is too close to painting cliché?
Rob C
Hi Rob
I'm afraid the implications of what you said are lost on me. Would you mind explaining what you mean?
By the way, Hek, welcome to LuLa. That's a great first post. Let's see more.
Thank you very much. There will be more to come :)
Fantastic image, color, composition, P.O.V., tonality...kudos /B
Thanks for your kind words!
-
Hi Rob
I'm afraid the implications of what you said are lost on me. Would you mind explaining what you mean?
No problem.
The motif - the subject matter - table, cloth, fruit/alternative food, chair and often another included image is so much a standard for every painter doing the obligatory still life. I have one, and have seen at least three others by one painter I know very well; if you bother to trawl through a variety of artists' websites you will see it occur over and over again. It's probably a standard art school requirement!
(That's not a criticism of your photograph - I very seldom bother criticising anything I see here - to me it's just second-guessing and a waste of mutual time. You learn zero from such comments beyond the fact that some like and some do not, and yet others want to express their supposed superiority. There are sometimes some outstanding commercial photographs displayed on LuLa, and I do comment there because the photographers know what they are doing and have no need of other people's advice - they just show for the interest of other professionals.)
I can only guess that's what Graham was referring to with his comment about it being difficult to analyse your photograph as photograph exactly because of the motif which, I imagine, he also sees very much within the painter's traditional oeuvre.
In a way, it's the basic problem facing all artists/photographers, however much they attempt to divert the fact: everything has, to some extent or the other, been done to death. It might have been done to death centuries ago, but the means of propagating that news didn't exist, and so the supposedly 'new' had a fighting chance of being seen as such by those removed from prior exposure. It used to be, pre-tv, that commedians could tell the same jokes for years as they went from theatre to theatre: the immediacy of television killed many of them off for that reason: they were perceived stale second time around.
Rob C
-
There's a lot to be said for making knowing winks... jokes are good, the world is adequately supplied in seriousness.
There may well be a role in photography for the old-school fine arts discipline of copying old masters: to learn about composition rather than painting techniques. A friend recreated a lot of Caravaggios with models. I accidentally recreated the same Caravaggio's portrait of Narcissus while playing around with self portraits, which made it a double joke :)
I've also shot quite pornographic photos of peaches and melons, just for the satisfaction of putting them on Facebook where displaying a nipple can get you banned.
The thing is that in all those cases, it's not the photo itself that is to be discussed, but all the things it refers to. That's what I had in mind, although Rob zeroed in on the still life cliché much more precisely :)
You could also take it very seriously and relate it to Sarah Lucas and her self-portrait with two fried eggs on her chest... which I hope everyone considers a joke as well.
-
There's a lot to be said for making knowing winks... jokes are good, the world is adequately supplied in seriousness.
There may well be a role in photography for the old-school fine arts discipline of copying old masters: to learn about composition rather than painting techniques. A friend recreated a lot of Caravaggios with models. I accidentally recreated the same Caravaggio's portrait of Narcissus while playing around with self portraits, which made it a double joke :)
I've also shot quite pornographic photos of peaches and melons, just for the satisfaction of putting them on Facebook where displaying a nipple can get you banned.
The thing is that in all those cases, it's not the photo itself that is to be discussed, but all the things it refers to. That's what I had in mind, although Rob zeroed in on the still life cliché much more precisely :)
You could also take it very seriously and relate it to Sarah Lucas and her self-portrait with two fried eggs on her chest... which I hope everyone considers a joke as well.
But not on the beach in 70s Florida!
We were doing a calendar there, and the model and my wife were sunning themselves at a time of day when we couldn't shoot because it was too contrasty. Both girls were topless, normal at the time in Europe, and a passing posse of middle-aged US ladies objected strongly, making unpleasant remarks about whores and fried eggs... Yeah, divided by that commonality of language and mores...
Rob
-
Naked? No...
-
Naked? No...
The lady seems to have an identity crisis: lookit them shoes!
;-)
Rob
-
Shocking! No socks!!!
-
I very seldom bother criticising anything I see here - to me it's just second-guessing and a waste of mutual time. You learn zero from such comments beyond the fact that some like and some do not, and yet others want to express their supposed superiority.
Rob, that's self-deprecating but overly general. Comments such as "I like it" or "It's awful" are perhaps interesting, depending on who wrote them, and perhaps encouraging; but critique, such as provided in particular by Terry, can be really helpful. I like to think that my photography has improved considerably over the last decade (and I hope I'm not deluding myself); and I attribute a good deal of that improvement to stuff I've learned here.
There are sometimes some outstanding commercial photographs displayed on LuLa, and I do comment there because the photographers know what they are doing and have no need of other people's advice - they just show for the interest of other professionals.
Now there, you've lost me. Why bother?
Jeremy
-
She's a starving artist, she can't afford socks :)
-
Rob, that's self-deprecating but overly general. Comments such as "I like it" or "It's awful" are perhaps interesting, depending on who wrote them, and perhaps encouraging; but critique, such as provided in particular by Terry, can be really helpful. I like to think that my photography has improved considerably over the last decade (and I hope I'm not deluding myself); and I attribute a good deal of that improvement to stuff I've learned here.
Now there, you've lost me. Why bother?
Jeremy
Indeed, insofar as the amateur is concerned; that's why the pros tend to post in more pro-oriented areas of LuLa: they know their audience and that audience likes to see what its peers are up to in this brief life. Curiosity, with no pussies to feel obliged to pat. And parts of LuLa provide that for them.
I guess that cyclists find their own media heaven, as must doctors, lawyers and even estate agents with professional publications that cater for these interests, and so with images, too.
Now, as to your own photography improving considerably over the last decade, don't you think that, even possibly, that's because you might actually be doing more of it?
I'll tell you a secret: at no time in my life did I even imagine that I might not know how to photograph a model. Even when I had never even seen one. If something is for you, you just know; introspection about it could destroy it before it has a chance! Psychosomatic death. That's why my belief is avoid gurus: just go out and bloody do it! Practice makes you as good as you're gonna get. It's just photography, not rocketing to the stars!
;-)
Rob
-
Read an interview with John Cage the other night. He was talking about the need to question what one likes, or doesn't like: why do we consider a police siren less melodious than Barber's Elegy for violin?
Then he was asked; "so is there anything you really hate?"
"Being treated as a guru"
:-)
-
No problem.
Thanks Rob, I appreciate you taking the time to explain.