Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Richard Man on October 15, 2012, 02:44:54 am
-
OK to post more than one related theme images?
(http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20121013-CF045769.jpg)
(http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20121013-CF045747.jpg)
(http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20121013-CF045761.jpg)
-
All good bit I especially like the last in the trio.
-
A fine set.
-
Hi Richard. Welcome to LuLa. You had some fine work on Street & PJ, and this is a good start here. #3 is the one that matters. I'd rate the first two so-so, but the last one speaks to me. Let's see some more.
-
Nice work. The 2nd one works best for me, particularly because the vertical board or post in the foreground fights to be seen as a sloping or horizontal board, much larger at the far end, because of the conflicting converging lines surrounding it.
-
Thank you all. It's funny that the 1st one is my favorite, and the 3rd one, while I like quite a bit, I wasn't sure that other people may like it.
Russ, nice to see you here :-)
-
Russ, nice to see you here :-)
Thanks, Richard. Been here a long time. I think you'll enjoy it. You do good work and over here people aren't afraid to critique. One thing that's different here is that there's no rule against downloading somebody's picture, making changes to show what you're suggesting with your critique, and then re-posting in the same thread. That kind of thing is infinitely more effective than trying to describe changes in words. Also, there are no tight jaws (except in politics) and there's no "artist in residence," which always struck me as a silly phrase for a photo blog.
Have fun and keep posting.
-
Hi Richard. Welcome to LuLa. You had some fine work on Street & PJ, and this is a good start here. #3 is the one that matters. I'd rate the first two so-so, but the last one speaks to me. Let's see some more.
Yes. Me too.
Mike.
-
Strong light, harsh shadows. All on an aggressive angle. What's not to like? The first plays on a number of levels for me, you would have already noticed how the shadow line bisects the calf of the young boy as well as the gent in the background. Pfft.
Rid of the bullshit.
Two is weak in this format. It might work larger but it does nothing to connect. Third is what leading lines hope to be. It's fun to take these sort of shots.
I don't know. These are all nice but innocuous.
-
I don't know. These are all nice but innocuous.
In other words: situation normal.
-
A critique on the critiques: Richard picked his spots and made excellent use of linear perspective in bright sunlight to give us the lines and shadows of his title. In the first two we get interesting contrasts, the hand of man, arrays of good midtones. Some of that technical excellence breaks down in the third. But what do we get in exchange? What I get is a feeling I can't describe in words: a little bit of ominous, a question about this not terribly secure walkway that leads to a darkened structure next to a bright spot (caused by a lens flare), a limpid moon hanging low over a distant mountain range.
There's a feeling in #3 that simply isn't there in #1 or #2. We constantly critique in terms of technique: crop here or there to implement the rule of thirds, bring up the tones in this part of the picture, or bring the tones down over there, reduce the noise over here, sharpen a bit more over there. But the bottom line is whether or not a picture grabs you in the gut. Look through them again. Which one grabs you, not as a fine demonstration of photo technique but as meaningful art? I don't mean to overstate the case. It's a matter of degree. But to me, it's the undefinable impact of a picture that matters. The technical side almost always is a nitpick.
-
A critique on the critiques: Richard picked his spots and made excellent use of linear perspective in bright sunlight to give us the lines and shadows of his title. In the first two we get interesting contrasts, the hand of man, arrays of good midtones. Some of that technical excellence breaks down in the third. But what do we get in exchange? What I get is a feeling I can't describe in words: a little bit of ominous, a question about this not terribly secure walkway that leads to a darkened structure next to a bright spot (caused by a lens flare), a limpid moon hanging low over a distant mountain range.
There's a feeling in #3 that simply isn't there in #1 or #2. We constantly critique in terms of technique: crop here or there to implement the rule of thirds, bring up the tones in this part of the picture, or bring the tones down over there, reduce the noise over here, sharpen a bit more over there. But the bottom line is whether or not a picture grabs you in the gut. Look through them again. Which one grabs you, not as a fine demonstration of photo technique but as meaningful art? I don't mean to overstate the case. It's a matter of degree. But to me, it's the undefinable impact of a picture that matters. The technical side almost always is a nitpick.
Right on the nose, Russ! It's the feeling that matters!
-
#1 doesn't grab me either way.
#2 - the post destroyed my interest. Maybe what is behind the post is worse, i don't know.
#3 grabbed me - just enough of a silhouette at the end of the trail to know that the horse is going to get back to the barn. It's that glad feeling at the end of a long trip with home in sight.
Frank