Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Jeremy Roussak on January 13, 2017, 02:30:29 pm
-
I picked up a copy of a magazine while waiting for a train and looked at an article on minimalist b&w photography. I thought I'd give it a try. I'm finding there's a line between "minimalist" and "boring" and it's sometimes hard to tell on which side any of my images falls.
How about this one?
Jeremy
-
Works for me. Dynamic but restful.
-
I agree with Scott. And I agree with your assessment of how minimalism is often on the border of being "boring." This is true of many genres in photography, from fashion to street. However, I would advise more studying and reading on minimalism. It will grow on you if done well and can make powerful and elegant statements.
JR
-
+1 to both Scott's and John's comments.
-
Love it! Great seeing.
-
Nice photograph with a lot of power.
Rob
-
Love it! Great seeing.
I'm late coming to it, but +1.
-
My first glance thought it was a piece of skin. Only when I enlargened it I saw it was a hole in the ice. Worth posting.
-
I agree with what has already been said: great seeing.
-
My first glance thought it was a piece of skin. Only when I enlargened it I saw it was a hole in the ice. Worth posting.
So did I!
Rob C
-
As all the accolades suggest, this one works for many reasons.
The shape of the hole is arresting, and the camera's viewpoint is an excellent one.
There is just enough texture on the ice at the edges of the hole to identify the location, so the viewer needn't waste time on the "What is it?" guessing game.
The ripples on the water add zest without distracting from the excellent sense of form of the hole.
I must admit that I do attempt many, many minimalist shots, and when I look at the resulting images, 99% of the time they are totally boring, even to me.
But that other 1% is worth the effort.
-
As all the accolades suggest, this one works for many reasons.
The shape of the hole is arresting, and the camera's viewpoint is an excellent one.
There is just enough texture on the ice at the edges of the hole to identify the location, so the viewer needn't waste time on the "What is it?" guessing game.
The ripples on the water add zest without distracting from the excellent sense of form of the hole.
I must admit that I do attempt many, many minimalist shots, and when I look at the resulting images, 99% of the time they are totally boring, even to me.
But that other 1% is worth the effort.
But Eric, think of the pleasure during the shooting: photography is a multifaceted art (pace, elsewhere), and sometimes one makes art with it, and sometimes not. I enjoy the shooting, and if I get something near - or even better - totally different to what I'd imagined and I like it, great! It's the freedom of the non-pro situation. Enjoy!
Rob
-
But Eric, think of the pleasure during the shooting: photography is a multifaceted art (pace, elsewhere), and sometimes one makes art with it, and sometimes not. I enjoy the shooting, and if I get something near - or even better - totally different to what I'd imagined and I like it, great! It's the freedom of the non-pro situation. Enjoy!
Rob
Agreed.
-
But Eric, think of the pleasure during the shooting: photography is a multifaceted art (pace, elsewhere), and sometimes one makes art with it, and sometimes not. I enjoy the shooting, and if I get something near - or even better - totally different to what I'd imagined and I like it, great! It's the freedom of the non-pro situation. Enjoy!
Rob
I certainly agree, too. Some of my best moments with my 8x10" view camera were on outings where I didn't even bring any film holders with me. Just set up and enjoyed the inmage on the ground glass under the dark cloth. And that image was always in full color, too! I never did shoot a single piece of color film in any big camera. Couldn't afford it.
-
Thank you, all: that's the reaction I'd been hoping for. Rob, your comments are spot on, and apply particularly to us amateurs.
I'll try some more.
Jeremy
-
Well, as you all probably know, I like to be thoroughly objective in my comments. Even ice and/or snow has some noticeable degree of texture and/or shading. There's nothing as boring as a plain, uniform, sheet of white paper.
I would prefer to see at least a hint of some subtle shading and texture on the flat ice surrounding the water.
-
Well, as you all probably know, I like to be thoroughly objective in my comments. Even ice and/or snow has some noticeable degree of texture and/or shading. There's nothing as boring as a plain, uniform, sheet of white paper.
I would prefer to see at least a hint of some subtle shading and texture on the flat ice surrounding the water.
I'd agree. There is not enough information in the negative space.
-
Kikashi, I hope you don't mind but I played around with your file just for ideas sake. Feel free to ignore it if you wish, but centered compositions are generally to be avoided as they can be quite dull.
-
Kikashi, I hope you don't mind but I played around with your file just for ideas sake. Feel free to ignore it if you wish, but centered compositions are generally to be avoided as they can be quite dull.
Hmmmm... no, I can't say I agree. First, I think that the original shape in its entirety is important. Second, while I can't speak for the OP, I suspect (from the square crop) that the centered composition is on purpose, and I think it's appropriate for this image. It gives the image balance. Cropping as you've done adds a tension that creates a whole different (and less successful) image, IMO. I also prefer the lack of texture in the snow. It helps to keep one's focus on the beautiful shape, texture and tonality. Adding texture to the snow would diminish the image by giving us unneeded realism and context.
I wouldn't change Kikashi's image. It's lovely. Just my humble opinion, of course. :)
-
Kikashi, I hope you don't mind but I played around with your file just for ideas sake. Feel free to ignore it if you wish, but centered compositions are generally to be avoided as they can be quite dull.
One of the great things about Photoshop is its potential to improve an image, according to one's own standards, of course, if one has the skills. However, I tend to agree with JNB that your alternative cropping, in this instance, does not improve anything. Just my opinion. No-one is ultimately right on such issues.
Hoping that Kikashi does not object to people playing around with his image, I've produced my own version which I prefer. Others might not, of course.
I've lightened the water and darkened the ice. With more time I could introduce some light shades and a bit of texture on the ice, however, a pale cyan border appeals to me more than your cropping.
Here's my version. ;)
-
Hmmmm... no, I can't say I agree. First, I think that the original shape in its entirety is important. Second, while I can't speak for the OP, I suspect (from the square crop) that the centered composition is on purpose, and I think it's appropriate for this image. It gives the image balance. Cropping as you've done adds a tension that creates a whole different (and less successful) image, IMO. I also prefer the lack of texture in the snow. It helps to keep one's focus on the beautiful shape, texture and tonality. Adding texture to the snow would diminish the image by giving us unneeded realism and context.
I wouldn't change Kikashi's image. It's lovely. Just my humble opinion, of course. :)
Fair enough. It was simply a suggested alternative approach. I wouldn't choose mine either ultimately even though centered comps are best avoided.
-
Of the three versions posted so far Jeremy's original is clearly the best, IMHO. The two suggested "improvements" both look pretentious and much less convincing to me. As for centered comps, I hear a voice whispering, "Hey, Edward W! Why don't you move that Pepper off-center? And that Nautilus shell is so boring!" ???
-
I think JNB's analysis of the image is spot on. A successful image should not be measured by preexisting guidelines of what constitutes a good image. As already stated, one does not necessarily need "texture", or certain "shapes", or the rule of thirds or a certain amount of negative space, to create a successful image. If the image has impact and looks good, we should instead, analyse why it works and not impose "rules" from without. I am often guilty of doing this myself. Good critique is not always easy. We all have preconceptions of what constitutes a good image.
JR
-
A successful image should not be measured by preexisting guidelines of what constitutes a good image.
All images, successful or not, are measured by pre-existing guidelines. It cannot be otherwise.
The guidelines might be poorly understood, and a person might not know, or be able to express, why he likes or dislikes a particular image, but the guidelines must exist for any impression to exist.
-
All images, successful or not, are measured by pre-existing guidelines. It cannot be otherwise.
The guidelines might be poorly understood, and a person might not know, or be able to express, why he likes or dislikes a particular image, but the guidelines must exist for any impression to exist.
Who wrote the guidelines? Was it one person, or was it a committee?
-
Who wrote the guidelines? Was it one person, or was it a committee?
Countless millions of people throughout the ages have written the guidelines or expressed the guidelines in some way, although they might not always have titled them as guidelines.
Every child from the date of its birth begins to learn guidelines in order to interpret what it sees.
For example, a child soon learns that any object it sees, which is partly obscured by another object, must be behind or further away than the object which partially obscures it.
That's an obvious fact for all adults and young children, but we forget that it is a guideline which we all had to learn as a baby. Okay? ;)
-
Just because there are "guidelines" does not mean that they are all relevant to every image.
What some of us have been arguing is that the guidelines that some have recommended in order to "improve" Jeremy's image do not, in fact, improve it.
-
Central placement, while it may not work quite well in rectangular formats, is actually well suited for a square one.
Speaking about guidelines, a kind reminder of the forum etiquette: while unwritten, it has been accepted as courteous to ask before playing with someone's photograph. PM would be the best.
-
Central placement, while it may not work quite well in rectangular formats, is actually well suited for a square one.
Speaking about guidelines, a kind reminder of the forum etiquette: while unwritten, it has been accepted as courteous to ask before playing with someone's photograph. PM would be the best.
Is that another ad hominem? They seem to be changing definition every day!
;-)
Rob
-
All images, successful or not, are measured by pre-existing guidelines. It cannot be otherwise.
The guidelines might be poorly understood, and a person might not know, or be able to express, why he likes or dislikes a particular image, but the guidelines must exist for any impression to exist.
I think you are confusing cause and effect. A consensus has developed over the years regarding composition of images. It works, for many images, perhaps most. It doesn't work for many other images. Perhaps this is one.
Your last sentence at best simply meaningless, insofar as it implies (to be kind) or states (to be accurate) that I am - nobody is - allowed to have an impression of any image in the absence of guidelines. In fact, "meaningless" is unnecessarily kind. It's drivel.
I don't think there are any guidelines which cover bordering a black and white image in shades of cyan, but I certainly have an opinion about it. It's a bizarre thing to do.
Central placement, while it may not work quite well in rectangular formats, is actually well suited for a square one.
Quite
Speaking about guidelines, a kind reminder of the forum etiquette: while unwritten, it has been accepted as courteous to ask before playing with someone's photograph. PM would be the best.
Thanks for the support, but I have always taken the view that if I post an image here, it's open season for anyone to fiddle with it, the only provisos being that it's done in an attempt to be helpful, or at least interesting, and of course that it's not done for financial gain.
Kikashi, I hope you don't mind but I played around with your file just for ideas sake. Feel free to ignore it if you wish, but centered compositions are generally to be avoided as they can be quite dull.
As I say above, I've no objection. Your version is interesting, but it's not my vision. I centred the whole of the hole in the ice and snow because it felt right to me to do it that way. You have produced a completely different photograph.
Jeremy
PS: my name is Jeremy. Kikashi is a handle I use here and elsewhere. It's a term in Go.
-
Ray, I agree with you. I expressed my myself poorly. I meant to say what Eric has stated. It is well established that most, if not all of the compositional guidelines and principles in photography come from painting and the other arts. They are interrelated.
JR
-
Your last sentence at best simply meaningless, insofar as it implies (to be kind) or states (to be accurate) that I am - nobody is - allowed to have an impression of any image in the absence of guidelines. In fact, "meaningless" is unnecessarily kind. It's drivel.
Jeremy,
The issue is not one of being allowed to have an impression in the absence of guidelines. Rather, it's just a natural and unavoidable state of affairs that everyone, when viewing an image, will automatically use guidelines that they have processed and interpreted and attached a certain significance to, during the course of their life.
Of course, I'm using the term 'guideline' in a very broad sense, and such guidelines are not always able to be clearly articulated by each individual. An example of this would be the situation of someone liking or disliking an image but not being able to express why.
In other words, an image might resonate with certain embedded guidelines within the individual, but what those guidelines are specifically might sometimes be difficult for the individual to articulate.
I don't think there are any guidelines which cover bordering a black and white image in shades of cyan, but I certainly have an opinion about it. It's a bizarre thing to do.
The guidelines here relate to the issue of contrast. As I mentioned earlier, the relatively large area of ice surrounding the water is so devoid of detail and shade that it feels as boring as a blank sheet of white paper.
The dark and detailed patch of water in the centre partially redresses that problem, but not entirely. The expanse of white surrounding the hole is too great for a pleasing, compositional balance (in my opinion of course, humble or otherwise). ;)
By creating a pale cyan border, within an outer black frame, I was simply trying to compensate for the boring expanse of white, by introducing an additional feature of contrast. The color cyan is also suggestive of a blue sky reflected off the ice.
Now you might find it bizarre. No problem. However, I think that 'bizarre' might be preferable to 'boring'. ;)
-
Well done. I like the first one. I think it's one of your strongest pictures.
-
Jeremy,
The issue is not one of being allowed to have an impression in the absence of guidelines. Rather, it's just a natural and unavoidable state of affairs that everyone, when viewing an image, will automatically use guidelines that they have processed and interpreted and attached a certain significance to, during the course of their life.
Maybe you expressed yourself clumsily. It's hard to interpret what you wrote: "the guidelines must exist for any impression to exist" in a way other than mine, however.
The guidelines here relate to the issue of contrast. As I mentioned earlier, the relatively large area of ice surrounding the water is so devoid of detail and shade that it feels as boring as a blank sheet of white paper.
There's some detail there, if you look for it. It's less apparent in the jpeg conversion for posting than it is in the original file. I'm not sure that creating grey snow is the answer, but I appreciate that you were editing my jpeg, not my raw file.
By creating a pale cyan border, within an outer black frame, I was simply trying to compensate for the boring expanse of white, by introducing an additional feature of contrast. The color cyan is also suggestive of a blue sky reflected off the ice.
Now you might find it bizarre. No problem. However, I think that 'bizarre' might be preferable to 'boring'. ;)
The sky wasn't blue and I think wouldn't have been that colour if it had been. The blue surrounding is completely out of keeping with the minimalist approach I was hoping would work.
Anyway, I'm glad to have provoked an interesting discussion.
Jeremy
-
Ray, I agree with you. I expressed my myself poorly. I meant to say what Eric has stated. It is well established that most, if not all of the compositional guidelines and principles in photography come from painting and the other arts. They are interrelated.
JR
Which painters established the guidelines and who did they "consult" when they established them? It seems to me that we are going round in circles. If someone wants to put a straight jacket on their thinking by consulting the guidelines that is fine but insisting that others do likewise is plain wrong. An experienced photographer should frame and crop by instinct. If everyone followed the guidelines then all photographs would look similar?
-
Which painters established the guidelines and who did they "consult" when they established them? It seems to me that we are going round in circles. If someone wants to put a straight jacket on their thinking by consulting the guidelines that is fine but insisting that others do likewise is plain wrong. An experienced photographer should frame and crop by instinct. If everyone followed the guidelines then all photographs would look similar?
Stamper,
You're confusing guidelines with rules, which is perhaps understandable because the two terms are often used interchangeably.
However, I consider a guideline to be much more flexible than a rule.
-
Stamper,
You're confusing guidelines with rules, which is perhaps understandable because the two terms are often used interchangeably.
However, I consider a guideline to be much more flexible than a rule.
Is dancing on a head of a pin one of your other hobbies? ;) :D
-
Is dancing on a head of a pin one of your other hobbies? ;) :D
No. I don't consider myself to be a particularly good dancer. It's not one of my strong points. ;)
-
No. I don't consider myself to be a particularly good dancer. It's not one of my strong points. ;)
Exactly what guidelines led you to that conclusion? ;)
-
Exactly what guidelines led you to that conclusion? ;)
Two left feet perhaps... :o
-
Exactly what guidelines led you to that conclusion? ;)
Guidelines are never exact. ;)