Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: pcgpcg on August 15, 2017, 12:29:31 pm
-
I’d like your first reaction to this photo, then some brutally honest critique.
Here’s mine… I keep getting drawn to it, but upon examination I always decide there is way too much going on and no focal point and I end up dismissing it. Then a month later I see it again and go through the same thought process and dismiss it again. Then I see it again and the process continues. It’s driving me crazy and I’m interested to see how it affects others. Thanks for your time.
Oh, this is Lago Torre in Argentina. While holed up in El Chalten for two weeks I made two trips here to photograph Cerro Torre on days that were predicted to be clear, but it was always obscured by clouds (here on the left).
-
My first reaction: have I seen this before? This is not in a bad sense but somehow looks familiar.
Then when I take my time I see a very nice photograph, with good composition and light. I can also guess that the Olympus sensor struggled at some extent on the left lower corner when you lifted the shadows, I'm not sure if slightly darker or bracketing might have helped.
You are partially right about the focal point, as I said above darkening the left lower corner or brightening might help with it.
PS. as it is my eye is drawn towards the peaks on the right upper quadrant and from there there is a competition between the ice in the right lower corner and the peaks in the distant left upper corner.
-
Since you asked for critique, I'll try. 8)
Somehow I can understand your feelings about the picture. Everything seems to be there, but the impression you get it somehow strange, at least it is, for me it is, too.
My idea after looking yesterday and this morning again is, that the light is inconsistent in a rather disturbing way. The light to the right/ foreground (in a way the big massif is a foreground, more than the iceberg, which is actually nearer; which is anther little problem) is dramatically different to the light an the left/ background. Everything is different: brightness, contrast, color, structure ... Because of this the big massiv almost looks like cut out and pasted into the picture, looks a bit like a composite. Even sea and iceberg look somehow like a picture on it's own; again too different light. Possibly the processing you did, even enhances this impression, I guess there's quite a bit work on certain areas in it. Hard to tell, but would be interesting, if this is as strong in a less manipulated picture. Or get rid of the color? That warm bright spot on the right is really the first eye-catcher, but not this attractive.
All that said, the picture is interesting on it's own because of these special circumstances. It's not easily accessible, though, it that was what you were after, I had to say, no, this one might not be "the one".
HTH
farbschlurf
-
A fine, albeit straightforward photograph. It's all there, but you're right, it's lacking something.
I agree with armand and farbschlurf regarding the lighting. Bringing up the left side will help to give more balance to the lighting in the photograph.
Do you have another composition that includes more to the left of this scene? The iceberg is a focal point, but because it is so far left the eye heads right and never comes back. Having a wider view with more to the left of the ice would help, I believe.
-
I like it and is fine as-is. There were, of course, dozen of other possibilities at the time of shooting, but at the end of the day, we, photographers, have to make up our mind and shoot (or choose later) just one.
-
I like it and is fine as-is.
+1. You can over-analyze any photograph or painting. What really matters is your first reaction to it. Mine was positive.
-
I agree with Terry. I'm desperate to see more, especially to the LHS of the iceberg.
-
No need to worry, it's a superb photo.
-
+1. You can over-analyze any photograph or painting. What really matters is your first reaction to it. Mine was positive.
Mine too. I don't really see the alleged inconsistency of lighting. There's a lot going on, but it all hangs together very well.
Jeremy
-
Thank you everyone for taking the time to view the photo and share your thoughts and suggestions for improvements. Some of you have a good first reaction (like me) and some of you then see problems (like me). I think I'll file it away in the "Sow's ears with potential depending on my perspective" file until I am a year wiser, than take another look see. ;D
-
Thank you everyone for taking the time to view the photo and share your thoughts and suggestions for improvements. Some of you have a good first reaction (like me) and some of you then see problems (like me). I think I'll file it away in the "Sow's ears with potential depending on my perspective" file until I am a year wiser, than take another look see. ;D
It's an excellent, moody photo well-worth the effort both in the field and on screen. Think about how you want to use the photo. If it's a memory doc, then less intense editing is all that's needed. If you want to release it as a stock photo, it maybe just fine as it is right now. If you want to print it and frame it for the wall, you want to rid it of any nigglies you'll see every time you look at it. Some if those nigglies you may consider editing before it's released as stock, depending on the level of stock.
-
I think there are a lot of interesting elements in the image - do they work together to make a successful "whole"? Not sure. One thing right off the bat - is the extreme contrast is not helping the image. There appear to be large areas of crushed blacks and nearly black shadows. Really, really harsh and distracting. The other thing that occurred after looking at it a minute was that I wish to see more areas around the rock elements on left and right - giving them some "room to breath" if you will. Maybe you have a frame show wider or pulled back a bit. Something to consider. An alternative would be to pull in more - say crop the right 1/4 off and focus on the mountain peak and cloud etc. That has some possibilities.
-
ROTFL! ;D ;D ;D Thanks, Brandt, for making my comment about over-analysis come to life. And of course, the picture (any picture) obviously can't be finished without (further?) cropping!
-
Russ, you seem to be suggesting anything beyond an initial glance is over analysis. I thought you were the guy who recommended reviewing the 'masters' - but if you just flick through them without thought, which is the basis of analysis, what will you gain?
I thought Brandt's thoughts were considered, intelligent and supportive.
But I guess if all you seek is initial impact - 'Oh Wow' is the perfect critique.
Yes, I am a grumpy old bugger and I'm pissed off by the way thoughtful analysis is being devalued not just here but more generally. I want to know why something works, not simply that it does or does not.
Mike
-
Hi Mike,
I think visual art either does its job at first glance or it doesn't. When you look at one of the Impressionists' quickly-executed paintings do you stop to analyze the brushstrokes? You might do that later. You might even write a lengthy and boring treatise on how the painter used his brushes. But your first look is where you either experience the emotion the artist was trying to express or you don't. The idea that you need to "study" a work of art in order to "understand" it is egregious BS. It's stuff for people with degrees in art appreciation.
Brandt has a perfect right to express his views on a picture posted in something called "User Critiques." but I also get to disagree with him. First off, I disagree about "extreme" contrast. Brandt does some quite wonderful work, but it certainly doesn't include anything with "extreme" contrast, so I'd guess Brandt's criticism stems from his approach to his own work. Far from finding the contrast "harsh and distracting" I find the contrast striking and beautiful. You can introduce soft blandness in post-processing, but the time to make the other kinds of decisions Brandt's suggesting is when the camera is at your eye. You can't extend what's there to include "more room to breathe" unless you've already cropped the picture. As far as further cropping to "focus" on a detail, well. . . I've already said it, more than once.
The reason I was laughing is that I was pretty sure Brandt hadn't read the earlier comments. I still suspect that was true.
As far as you being a grumpy old bugger" is concerned, I'd be willing to bet I'm an older grumpy bugger than you, though since your listed age is "N/A" I can't be sure.
-
As far as you being a grumpy old bugger" is concerned, I'd be willing to bet I'm an older grumpy bugger than you...
+1
-
Hi Russ
I believe I understand your point about immediate impact but I disagree as I have seen works that I thought initially were very ho hum but when I returned to them I saw and appreciated the subtleties. Quite a few of Robert Rauschenberg's works needed a longer more detailed look after I had seen other works by him.
I think there's a place for images that creep up on you that lack that immediate impact that cries look at me! This is something I dislike about club competition or entry to salon although I realise it's unavoidable as time is of the essence and I enter images that provoke on first viewing.
And I know you have seniority in years as you're not shy about your age. I'll be 65 next month and get a free bus pass for 'local' travel and all travel in London :) I'm also chucking the towel in and retiring after what seems a long time self employed.
Mike
-
Hi Mike,
I'd agree that you can be introduced to a work of art -- photography, painting, poetry, music -- miss the point, then, later on, get the point. I think the reason it happens is that unless you're going around in a fog of pot smoke you continue to grow spiritually throughout your life. I still don't think "studying" a work of art leads to much. I could study Rauschenberg's stuff till hell freezes over and I'd still see a larger version of kindergarteners putting color on a surface. At least those splotches are painted rather than dripped in Pollockian fashion. But that's a personal failing, and I'm satisfied that Rauschenberg's work speaks to some. In fact, at the moment I'm working on an essay about the subliminal element that pushes art beyond simple enjoyment. If I ever finish it I'll post it on my web and post a link on LuLa.
I think you'll enjoy retirement. I certainly have. And I've never understood why anyone would be shy about his age. It's all good. It just changes as you go along. From what are you retiring? I spent thirty years self-employed as a software engineer after I retired from the air force, then finally retired from trying to make money, though I enjoyed building software, and started spending my time photographing and writing. It's a ball.
-
Software development was what I did and still do as I run down. Never really intended to but that's what I ended up doing. A one man operation that helped really small companies - usually under 50 employees often only single figures, so I had to be cost effective. I have now entered my date of birth. I'm not shy about my age - I revel in the fact I have got that far - I just don't like the way some forum software reminds people it's your birthday etc.
I think Rauschenberg is very clever indeed. It does drop into the category where it's easy to say any mutt could do it, well he did do it and he did it well in my opinion. Even that rather dippy three panel white. Also the photograph of some steps where a guy gets closer in each shot. Any mutt could do it but he did and it sits well. I also admire the way he collaborated with people and didn't seem to be overly worried about getting rich, or at times comfortable.
-
Fascinating. My software development career sounds an awful lot like yours. I worked with local businesses, mostly small -- a business broker, an art dealer, a maker of music tapes with customer-selected content. My biggest was a cost-estimation package for environmental engineers (my youngest son had a large environmental engineering firm in Colorado Springs). I eventually sold that system outright to the State of Colorado. Early on I started a one-man corporation called Peak InfoSystems, Inc. to stay out of trouble. I loved building software, and for a short while I taught the C programming language at Colorado Tech. Later on I taught C++ to a group of Cirrus Logic engineers. I had a ball with the whole thing, and built stuff in everything from Basic, Z80 assembly, Fortran and Cobol to C#. My oldest son and his oldest son are still doing this stuff.
I doubt we'll ever agree about Rauschenberg, but that's okay. We don't have to.
-
Good lord it does sound like we had a similar software background. I taught at what we called a technical college aimed at young adults but I got onto the business development side so I taught (well sort of) adults in business who needed IT skills. This would be the early 80's. I also taught C to some local Defence people and to my horror had one of the authors of Algol in one group. Algol won't mean much in the US but it was a British language designed to compete with FORTRAN and probably COBOL for all I know. I failed but was very elegant which is nice but not essential. I left the college to go solo and I suspect they breathed a sigh of relief :)
After some false starts (this was in the early days) I settled on VB and MS SQL Server. My most used software was for a gun trading platform - yes Russ we do buy and sell guns in the UK but the legislation is tight, very tight so this guy (a viscount no less, I can't reveal who really but he will be an earl in one of the oldest noble families one day) could only offer a trading platform and not actually buy and sell. It was and is very popular connecting 200 dealers nationwide to the punters.
Software is fun. One of the best projects was with a local manufacturer who made the biggest linear friction welder in the world. They could save 80% waste on titanium parts and just on seat brackets alone Boeing could get a free 747 each year. Working for aerospace is all about traceability and that was where I came in with my database skills. Clearly they were a big firm but the welder team was about 10 guys.
I'll miss some of the fun challenges but not the sometimes crackpot requests which are utterly pointless and just waste money and my time.
My son is also into development although his is mostly user UI for web sites. He taught me enough that I could do some database driven web site coding. No dancing penguins but grind it out database.
You probably predate my start by about 7-10 years?
Mike
-
I sent you a message, Mike. We're way off the subject here.
-
Got it Russ :)
-
Basic, Z80 assembly
I was never a coder, but I learned both BASIC and Z80 Assembly back in the early to mid 80's (as a 12-16 year old). A few years later I taught myself some REXX scripting to meet some needs, but that was about it. But having learned that? I'm glad I did - was fascinating and helped with problem solving all through my life.
-
I never intended to be a coder, I was a pure mathematician but for sundry reasons couldn't make a long term academic career after the PhD. I found that having been a good mathematician coding held few fears as in the end it's raw logic and that was a given. Pure maths is also very creative so you had to think around problems and learned to apply brute force only when all else failed.
Mike
-
I loved building software, and for a short while I taught the C programming language at Colorado Tech. Later on I taught C++ to a group of Cirrus Logic engineers. I had a ball with the whole thing, and built stuff in everything from Basic, Z80 assembly, Fortran and Cobol to C#.
There are more programmers lurking here than I'd imagined.When I manage to retire, I hope to start writing software again. I enjoy it.
I loved C (having used BCPL a lot as an undergraduate) but never got to grips with C++. Did you ever read this? (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ys2391og1z1f8i1/The%20truth%20about%20C%2B%2B.doc?dl=0)? Very funny.
Jeremy
-
Been there, done that.
Several flavors of BASIC, FORTRAN, COBOL, PL1, C, Assembler language for the DEC PDP-1 and for the original IBM PC, and a tiny bit of Forth, plus probably a few that I've completely forgotten. All I do on computers now is email, LightRoom, PhotoShop, LuLa, and a bit of web surfing.
I really enjoyed teaching and writing small, compact programs that worked efficiently. Since software has become so bloated, I've lost interest.
Pictures is where the action is, for me. :)
-
Looks as if just about everybody on LuLa was a programmer.
That link is a hoot, Jeremy. Actually, there's some truth to that farce. If you swallow the whole C++ enchilada you can cause yourself some problems, but in general it's a step in the right direction. C# is even better because it's designed to keep you from making some of the mistakes you're almost bound to make in C++. My grandson tells me there are later iterations that are even more foolproof (though you gotta remember there are a lot of fools out there).
And Eric, years ago I knew an older guy who was making a bundle maintaining Cobol stuff for banks. Younger folks simply didn't know Cobol, and the banks had sunk fortunes into their creaky Cobol systems and weren't about to dump them, so the guy had a huge market and not a lot of competition. He was laughing all the way to the bank. I thought about trying it, but I really disliked Cobol. You actually could write "ADD VERMOUTH TO GIN GIVING MARTINI," which was the equivalent in any reasonable programming language of "martini = gin + vermouth."
PL1, by the way, was the first language I used to write a program -- at IBM when I attended their 360 introductory course. Not long after the IBM trip I attended a DOD seminar at the Pentagon entitled "Specifications for Selection" and learned that even though the 360 was in operation the government had never heard there was such a thing as multitasking.
And I always loved teaching. The only reason I didn't continue at CTU was that I was losing too much money per hour. CTU was paying something like $12 per classroom hour (didn't include preparation or grading) and I was charging as much as $100 / hr for designing and building software systems, which in those days was a bundle.
-
I'm not surprised by the number of programmers here of a certain vintage anyway. Programmers tend to be those that like technology and when I was young the most accessible technology that produced end results was photography. I suspect it was that aspect that may have drawn a lot of us in. Geeks before our time :)
Add to that that wet photography processing is very process driven and that you can vary the process to get different results just how close to programming are you getting? Same with lenses, exposure, macro work etc. It's all very rule based and logical but then you build something bigger by taking the simple rules/processes and combining them.
Finally, programming is usually creative as you have to solve problems.
I'm not surprised at all. I wonder how many photographers missed their vocation and should be programmers. Damn sight easier than wedding photography :)
Mike
-
Damn sight easier than wedding photography :)
Mike
And nowhere near as hairy. When you're doing wedding photography everybody around you is an expert. When you're doing software things are a lot quieter.
-
There are risks however. I once brought a steel mill to a standstill just by copying a file on the server. No-one thought to tell me that this was 'a know issue'.