Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Boti on December 06, 2011, 12:43:42 am
-
Hi,
(http://jboti.byethost24.com/direkt/0004.jpg)
Critiques welcomed, as always.
Thanks
Boti
-
For some reason that I can't fathom, this picture reminds me of written music on a sheet - as, I suppose, were it written it would have to be. Not music, understand, but the musical notation.
I see exactly the same thing in guitar format every time that I look up at the six power lines runnning diagonally across the field in front of my home. These are now vanishing rapidly under the onslaught of pine trees growing wild after the chap who farmed that field gave up in disgust when the European Union paid him money to kill off his animals and stop growing cereals so that France could continue unchallenged to corner the market and do just that...
I believe those chickens are coming home to roost.
Rob C
-
I'm firmly in the camp of those who believe "a photograph should stand on its own without a title to support it". So, for me, the photo does't do much without the title to "explain" its significance. If the ice is significant, it should have played a more significant role in the photo. Getting down even closer with details of the ice more dominant could have contributed even more to the concept.
The other point to remember is that a viewer's eye is always drawn tot he brightest part of the photo, in this case the lit trees, which pulls the viewer away from the main point of the photo. Getting down closer, eliminating the lit trees and concentrating on the patterns in the ice with the bottom of the unlit trees along the top would allow th ice then to become the brightest part of the image, the trees would be a supporting role to the composition and you would perhaps have conveyed your message more clearly.
Just some thoughts.
-
Apart from the lighting, the composition is rather good. But the lighting is the real issue here. The trees and sky in the background are brightly lit, which caused your camera to underexpose the foreground. HDR would have helped, but then you'd have a photo with garish HDR color and bland lighting. The best solution would have been to shoot at a different time of day when the light was more advantageous.
-
However, absent the brightly-lit (and possibly distracting) trees, you'd lose the golden reflection on the ice.
For me, the image doesn't quite hit the mark. It shows too much. It might have been more successful if you'd tightened the view to include just ice and reflection.
I love shooting ice. If you still have access to that river, I'd be tempted to try some macro work there.
-
However, absent the brightly-lit (and possibly distracting) trees, you'd lose the golden reflection on the ice.
For me, the image doesn't quite hit the mark. It shows too much. It might have been more successful if you'd tightened the view to include just ice and reflection.
I love shooting ice. If you still have access to that river, I'd be tempted to try some macro work there.
The golden reflection in the ice only makes visual sense in the larger context that includes the trees. Without them, it just looks like dirty ice.
-
Thank you all for your critiques.
I can draw my conclusions from here. There's too much in the image, no clear subject. Ice and light is competing with each other.
The golden reflection in the ice was what caught my eye, instantly I thought I need to show what was reflected. Clearly I was wrong.
Thanks again, your comments were really helpful.
Boti
-
Thank you all for your critiques.
I can draw my conclusions from here. There's too much in the image, no clear subject. Ice and light is competing with each other.
The golden reflection in the ice was what caught my eye, instantly I thought I need to show what was reflected. Clearly I was wrong.
Thanks again, your comments were really helpful.
Boti
I've said this before, too often : do what pleases you; the hell with other opinions, even is you ask for them.
;-)
Rob C
-
Boti: You were not wrong in what you did. In fact, the best thing you could be doing is photographing and sharing. I look upon much of what we do as photographers as "sketching" - working with ideas, practicing technique and developing our ability to see - much like painters do with their sketchbooks. Sharing the work you do isn't about validation; it's about learning.
Rob: You are correct, to a point. One shouldn't bend and mould their style to suit the opinions of others.
However, if someone posts here in the "User Critique" section, it's an indication that they are open to feedback. Being open to feedback is how we grow as photographers, crafts people and artists. Being open to other points of view, even if you disagree with them, is a broadening experience.
During the photo classes and workshops I conduct, students always look forward to the Critique Sessions where we all share our ideas of how to improve. We certainly do not accept everything everyone says, but we always walk away with a few nuggets that help us to become better photographers.
-
Maybe my statement wasn't clear enough, I am doing what pleases me, It's not the doing, it's the outcome that's not exactly the thing that makes jump and shout of joy.
Terry, I know I wasn't wrong in what I did, if photography were a wrong thing to do, I wouldn't be doing it :), I was wrong in what I thought was the best thing to do. As I said, I thought I need to show what was reflected
but this raised a new problem (the brightly lit tree-tops and sky) that I was not aware of. Now I am, and this is exactly why I shared the picture - to learn through others opinions. You are so right about "sketching". I am practicing, I am trying to develop my ability to see photographically. And at this point I feel I need the help of others, that's why I'm sharing.
So thanks again
Boti
-
I am practicing, I am trying to develop my ability to see photographically. And at this point I feel I need the help of others, that's why I'm sharing.
And that's exactly why this forum exists. I hope we can offer impartial critiques and helpful suggestions to you.
-
And that's exactly why this forum exists. I hope we can offer impartial critiques and helpful suggestions to you.
Oh Pop! How do you manage to create impartial critiques?
That's the whole problem with this concept; to claim what you suggest is as unlikely as any guy's opinion being objective rather than, inevitably, subjective: I don't believe it's possble.
One's opinions, if offered in genuine mode, are moulded by one's personality which, itself, is conditioned by life experiences and genes.
Can't be done. So, inevitably, the neophyte gets, at the very least, a mild dose of brainwashing. That's why I think it's a bad idea. Sure, teach equipment and computer or film and developing, but don't mess with design/ideas. Not saying you are guillty of this, of course, just that it's a perilous path for anyone to travel.
Rob C
-
... Sure, teach equipment and computer or film and developing, but don't mess with design/ideas...
Rob, this sounds incredibly extreme. So, teach someone layers in post-processing, or developing times in film, but teach them nothing about design, composition, perception, symbols, etc.!?
Sure, there are probably a couple of individuals in this world capable of picking up a camera and, without knowing any of this, being capable of producing unique artistic results, but they belong to a genius category. Or, in painting, it would be classified as naive art (at least at its origins). Us, mere mortals, can still improve our skills and yes, vision, by learning and doing. Most of us first need to learn certain rules in order to forget them or transcend them into our unique vision. Not knowing the rules is not going to get you there.
As Pop once noted:
"... People like to say that rules are meant to be broken, but I say that rules are meant to keep the clueless from looking like idiots. Only break a rule when you're good enough to know what you're doing."
-
Rob, this sounds incredibly extreme. So, teach someone layers in post-processing, or developing times in film, but teach them nothing about design, composition, perception, symbols, etc.!?
Sure, there are probably a couple of individuals in this world capable of picking up a camera and, without knowing any of this, being capable of producing unique artistic results, but they belong to a genius category. Or, in painting, it would be classified as naive art (at least at its origins). Us, mere mortals, can still improve our skills and yes, vision, by learning and doing. Most of us first need to learn certain rules in order to forget them or transcend them into our unique vision. Not knowing the rules is not going to get you there.
As Pop once noted:
Don't make me blush, Slobodan: nobody ever taught me anything other than how to load a reel. And how to bulk process thirty prints at a time in a dish. Except in colour processing, where I had the good fortune to have another Rob, in the industrial photo unit where I worked, teach me all I ever needed to know (in the 60s) about the colour neg/pos system. But that was nothing to do with aesthetics, unless you want to include using CC filters as that...?
If anybody taught me anything about seeing, it was the guys published in Popular Photography Annuals many long years ago, along with those in Vogue, Harpers, Playboy and so forth. That's not the same as listening to guys on a forum; it's about absorbing what you like and sussing out how it's done. You do it with your own eyes. Very different to listening to critiques.
If I may roughly paraphrase John Ruskin: there’s nothing in this world that some man can’t offer to teach, and those who believe him are that man’s lawful prey.
But then, you know me: I’m that radical guy who doesn’t believe in fairies, just in miracles.
Rob C
-
Rob, when girls with big boobs are the center of attention in a photo, who could blame the viewer for not noticing that you never learned, say, the rule of thirds? ;D
Alternatively, I'd be happy to accept you belong to the genius category ;)
-
And, in the spirit of "brainwashing" our neophyte, I offer the following suggestion:
-
Oh Pop! How do you manage to create impartial critiques?
That's the whole problem with this concept; to claim what you suggest is as unlikely as any guy's opinion being objective rather than, inevitably, subjective: I don't believe it's possble.
One's opinions, if offered in genuine mode, are moulded by one's personality which, itself, is conditioned by life experiences and genes
Rob, there is absolutely no problem with this concept. People make impartial critiques and judgements all the time. In a court of law, for example, judges are presumed to be impartial and can get their rulings overturned if they're not. When critiquing a a photograph, giving an opinion based solely on the visual merits of the image is being impartial. Judging with your ego, or to belittle, bully or for self aggrandizement, is not being impartial. An impartial critique is not a put-down or a personal insult and is delivered without "prejudice", despite what you seem to think.
-
And, in the spirit of "brainwashing" our neophyte, I offer the following suggestion:
Nicely done.
Mike.
-
Rob, when girls with big boobs are the center of attention in a photo, who could blame the viewer for not noticing that you never learned, say, the rule of thirds? ;DAlternatively, I'd be happy to accept you belong to the genius category ;)
Slobodan, the only time I saw a chick with a third boob was in, I think, a Hans Solo moment, or it might have been in Total Recall instead, I can't remember. She was propping up a bar. Wonderful set of options.
Slobodan, you mean you wouldn't know to use the 'rule' from instinct unless it had an official name hung onto it?
Rob C
-
Rob, there is absolutely no problem with this concept. People make impartial critiques and judgements all the time. In a court of law, for example, judges are presumed to be impartial and can get their rulings overturned if they're not. When critiquing a a photograph, giving an opinion based solely on the visual merits of the image is being impartial. Judging with your ego, or to belittle, bully or for self aggrandizement, is not being impartial. An impartial critique is not a put-down or a personal insult and is delivered without "prejudice", despite what you seem to think.
There I agree, but then the alternative doesn't, in my mind, seem possible.
To use Law as an example is almost a laugh: dear God, it's all about money and whom you can afford to hire, and then retain, and for how long. Look at all of those high-profile cases that hit tv and the evidence screams at you. Law's just another ass for hire. I hired a lawyer to fight for me once; never again.
Rob C
-
Nicely done.
Mike.
+1. Quite a difference.
Scott
-
... Slobodan, you mean you wouldn't know to use the 'rule' from instinct unless it had an official name hung onto it?
Rob, I agree you can't teach someone talent, but you cripple a lot of talent by not teaching them how best to use it and develop it.
Every significant artist I can think of (with the exception of initial naive artists) went to school. Enough said. Michelangelo and Leonardo, Monet and Picasso. Academic school or apprenticeship. And please do not tell me all they learned there was how to mix colors and select brushes.
Teaching can be by someone else, or learning by self-study. You can learn "official names" for various techniques and rules, or you can observe what others did (as in your case) and copy it, consciously or subconsciously. But learning you did. However, someone telling you a thing or two along the way will speed up the process.
Teaching talent will help them turn into masters, artists and trailblazers. Teaching talentless people (like myself) won't get them there, but it will make them better photographers today than they were yesterday. Enough to make us happy, if not famous.
-
To use Law as an example is almost a laugh: dear God, it's all about money and whom you can afford to hire, and then retain, and for how long. Look at all of those high-profile cases that hit tv and the evidence screams at you. Law's just another ass for hire. I hired a lawyer to fight for me once; never again.
You're confusing the concept of law with the legal system. I have to assume that you're not advocating getting rid of laws themselves. The only reason we have any laws at all is because of opinions. If I steal your camera, for example, it's a crime, in society's opinion, therefore we have a law against it. Similarly, there used to be reams of so-called "blue laws" in the USA that prohibited all sorts of activities, usually because they were biblical prohibitions. At one time it was illegal to kiss your wife on a Sunday in the state of Connecticut. The law existed because in the opinion of society at the time, it was objectionable. Eventually society's opinion changed and they repealed the law. So opinions are important. Without opinions there can be no art and no civilization. Everyone has opinions and everyone is a critic. The artist has to pick through all of it and decide at the end of the day which opinions, in their opinion, are helpful and which aren't. And if they're very good their work will resonate with the public, because in their opinion it's great art.
So I wouldn't be too quick to condemn the process of asking for and delivering critiques of photographs here on LL. No one's opinion is sacred, and opinions are changing all the time, but opinions are still very important.
-
You're confusing the concept of law with the legal system. I have to assume that you're not advocating getting rid of laws themselves. The only reason we have any laws at all is because of opinions. If I steal your camera, for example, it's a crime, in society's opinion, therefore we have a law against it. Similarly, there used to be reams of so-called "blue laws" in the USA that prohibited all sorts of activities, usually because they were biblical prohibitions. At one time it was illegal to kiss your wife on a Sunday in the state of Connecticut. The law existed because in the opinion of society at the time, it was objectionable. Eventually society's opinion changed and they repealed the law. So opinions are important. Without opinions there can be no art and no civilization. Everyone has opinions and everyone is a critic. The artist has to pick through all of it and decide at the end of the day which opinions, in their opinion, are helpful and which aren't. And if they're very good their work will resonate with the public, because in their opinion it's great art.
So I wouldn't be too quick to condemn the process of asking for and delivering critiques of photographs here on LL. No one's opinion is sacred, and opinions are changing all the time, but opinions are still very important.
Now we have something we can agree upon! And that's the subjectivity of them all. At this point, I must let it go; the old dog's teeth aren't that firmly embedded any more.
;-)
Rob C
-
Teaching talent will help them turn into masters, artists and trailblazers. Teaching talentless people (like myself) won't get them there, but it will make them better photographers today than they were yesterday. Enough to make us happy, if not famous.
Well said.
So I wouldn't be too quick to condemn the process of asking for and delivering critiques of photographs here on LL. No one's opinion is sacred, and opinions are changing all the time, but opinions are still very important.
Well said this too.
Boti