Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: marvpelkey on November 06, 2012, 08:22:20 pm
-
OK, how about this one then??
-
I would say the pastel water and the foggy background call for a gentler rock, i.e., with shadows opened much more. The black "heaviness" weighs a bit too much on the composition. With that it would turn into a nicely serene photo.
-
I would say the pastel water and the foggy background call for a gentler rock, i.e., with shadows opened much more. The black "heaviness" weighs a bit too much on the composition. With that it would turn into a nicely serene photo.
I agree. A horizontal horizon wouldn't hurt, either.
Jeremy
-
+1!
The rock is very present against the rest of the image. Sometimes it's a good thing but I wished something else (follow Slobodan's suggestion, I think he is right). I quite like how the shadow of the rock "rides" the ripples in the water.
-
It looks like a giant clamshell ;)
-
Thanks for the constructive critiques.
I will try the lightening suggestion for the rock to see if the image is improved. I must admit, I often lean towards high contrast and so don't notice the impact as much as I should on some images, however, as some noted, it may not be appropriate for this one. As to the horizon, I always use a tripod and a bubble level so I think the skewed looking horizon is related to the lake shoreline coming closer on one side. Perhaps the camera was elevated enough for this to be noticeable.
Marv
-
One image that comes to my mind (as the suggested final result in terms of tonal values) is Elizabeth Carmel's one:
http://www.ElizabethCarmel.com/Silver-and-Gold-Lake-Tahoe-Photo-p/tah108.htm
-
Slobodan,
Thanks for the link. Lovely image and a good example of what you were referring to.
Funny thing, I recently visited Lake Tahoe and took some pictures of the same rocks. Not so funny thing, my images don't even come close to the linked one (however I also didn't have the lighting that is in the linked image).
Marv
-
Works for me, but I would make it completely abstract and remove the horizon line.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Works for me, but I would make it completely abstract and remove the horizon line.
Cheers,
Bernard
When I first looked at this image, I the firefox window was positioned so that the upper 20% of the image was obscured by accident. It worked for me, too.
-
By golly. . . there it IS. A rock.
-
By golly. . . there it IS. A rock.
Still sour from the loss, eh Russ?
Actually, watching a serene scene like the OP image might help.
On the other hand, the blackness and heaviness of the rock (as I mentioned above) might only make the matters worse, reminding you of the bleakness of the next four years?
;)
-
Russ,
I must admit I am just not sure how to take some of your comments (both in this thread and in another I started). I threw this image up to hopefully get some constructive criticism, of which others generously provided, and all comments were fairly easy to understand. However, I'm not sure if you are jesting or are having a bad day and don't like my thread subject heading??
Marv
-
Okay Marv, here's some constructive criticism. I don't know what you had in mind when you shot the rock, but as far as I can see, that's all there is. A rock with a partial reflection in the water. I don't see anything that distinguishes this rock from any other rock. Maybe it had some special significance for you, but that doesn't carry over to other viewers unless they understand what was in your mind when you made the shot. I know it's easy to get carried away when you concentrate on something like this. I do it all the time. But I usually, though not always, avoid posting something I shouldn't have posted by letting my photographs sit for a week or so while I come back to it a few times to see if its special significance is holding up.
-
Russ,
Landscape photography relies on symbolism, metaphor, analogy, etc. to achieve its impact.
In this case, there is a plenty of it, and, depending on viewer, it might denote serenity, solitude, stability, harmony, etc. It is a decent shot, and I, for one, would be pleased, had I shot it.
-
Russ,
Thanks for your critique (although I merely questioned your first post and was in no way soliciting you to make further comments, but they are appreciated). You raise some valid questions. That morning, I was the only person at the lake. It was quiet and the light was starting to develop. I tried to capture that calmness. I liked the play of the hot/cool colours and the dichotomy of the calm water against the crocodile skin like rock. Having said all that, perhaps if I have to verbally explain then I haven't captured the image well enough as I suppose it should speak for itself and not require explanation, as how many images out there come with a written explanation.
As to your "it's just a rock" comment, can you provide explanation as to why your "Roofs" image should not solicit a similar response "but it's just a couple roofs". I ask this in genuine sincerity and have no intent to insult.
Thanks
Marv
-
Russ,
Landscape photography relies on symbolism, metaphor, analogy, etc. to achieve its impact.
In this case, there is a plenty of it, and, depending on viewer, it might denote serenity, solitude, stability, harmony, etc. It is a decent shot, and I, for one, would be pleased, had I shot it.
Slobodan, ALL photography relies on symbolism, metaphor, analogy, etc. to achieve its impact. A photograph isn't the thing it symbolizes, so the only way it can convey any significance is through symbolism, metaphor, analogy, etc. In this case, what's the symbolism? I'd suggest you and Marv may have some common background in which a rock has symbolized something significant. Perhaps you're searching for serenity, solitude and harmony, and you saw a rock as a destination where you could, finally, achieve those things. But a work of art, in this case a photograph, has to stand on its own. If you get lucky, your viewer will respond, through symbolism, metaphor, analogy, etc., to your picture the same way you responded when you shot the picture. But that's not likely. The only works of art that really succeed are those that contain symbolism, metaphor, analogy, etc., commonly recognized by everyone. That's one reason why the hand of man is so important in a photograph. Everyone recognizes that, and everyone relates to it in some way.
Don't get too carried away by my respect for your landscape post-processing skills, Slobodan. I've been doing landscape for nearly seventy years and I'm quite capable of recognizing a picture when I see it. I haven't quite mastered the post-processing to my own satisfaction, but I'm working on it, and I appreciate your views when you give them. But landscape isn't my favorite subject. People are.
-
Russ,
Thanks for your critique (although I merely questioned your first post and was in no way soliciting you to make further comments, but they are appreciated). You raise some valid questions. That morning, I was the only person at the lake. It was quiet and the light was starting to develop. I tried to capture that calmness. I liked the play of the hot/cool colours and the dichotomy of the calm water against the crocodile skin like rock. Having said all that, perhaps if I have to verbally explain then I haven't captured the image well enough as I suppose it should speak for itself and not require explanation, as how many images out there come with a written explanation.
As to your "it's just a rock" comment, can you provide explanation as to why your "Roofs" image should not solicit a similar response "but it's just a couple roofs". I ask this in genuine sincerity and have no intent to insult.
Thanks
Marv
Marv, Let me start by apologizing for coming off snippy in my first response, but I've been watching User Critiques go downhill for months now. We're getting back to where most of what I see is either a merely pretty scene or a standard tourist shot, and every response has to be "I like it," or "Great shot," or "+1." There are plenty of other sites out there where that's standard fare, and I've dropped off or decided not to join all of them. LuLa seems to be the only remaining game in town. It's not pleasant to know you're going to hurt somebody's feelings, but if we can't have serious critiques there's no point in being here.
I think I pretty well covered my reaction to your rock in my response to Slobodan, but I have to go on to your perfectly reasonable critique of my "Roofs." There's certainly no earth-shaking symbolism, metaphor, or analogy in that picture. It's a study in contrasting horizontals, diagonals and textures, emphasized by a blank sky. The fact that it was constructed by the hand of man helps, but in the end it simply hasn't the impact a good street shot always has. Like your rock, it is what it is. Unlike your rock, it wasn't intended to be a study in symbolism, metaphor, or analogy.
-
... landscape isn't my favorite subject. People are.
Case closed.
-
Case closed.
Not at all, Slobodan. You claim that landscape is your favorite thing, but what I see from you is trains, buildings, movie theaters, etc., anything but landscape. Having a favorite thing is a long way from ruling everything else out. Furthermore, if you think my judgments are based strictly on my study of photography, you're badly mistaken. I judge on the basis of visual art in general: photography, painting, prints, etc. The same principles apply to all of them.
-
Russ, we get it.
You do not like, nor respect landscape photography. We, older forum members, know you think landscape photography genre is inferior to other genres in photography. We also know you think landscape photography is inferior to landscape painting. Fair enough, and you are not the only one.
Which then raises the question why you bother commenting on it at all, when what you say can be often summarized as "Just another irrelevant landscape photo. So what?" That catches newer members by surprise, given that they've come to a site called Luminous Landscape.
I often admit my lack of understanding of street photography, which happens to be your favorite genre. Yet I do not comment on those with "Just another street photo. So what?"
-
Slobodan, I guess it's never occurred to you that though making steel engravings might not be your favorite way to produce visual art, that fact doesn't necessarily preclude you from liking and admiring steel engravings. Yes, I think landscape painting can produce results superior to what landscape photography can produce, for several reasons, which I think I've already listed, but just because my favorite photographic genre is street photography doesn't mean I can't appreciate good landscape photography. I happen to think Giacomo Puccini is the greatest composer of all time, but I very much love and appreciate Beethoven, Gershwin, etc., etc., and I know enough about music to be able to distinguish good music from bad music.
You seem to feel that your photographic expertise is confined strictly to a single genre: landscape, and from what you're telling me, perhaps it is.
Mine's not.
-
Russ,
No need to apologize, but I do appreciate it.
I understand your frustration with watching User Critiques going downhill however, although this site has some very good photographers, there are those who produce those pretty shots you dislike, while on their quest to get better and perhaps one day produce an image that actually "speaks". For some, part of that process entails putting out images for constructive critique. I too, see little value, other than perhaps an ego stroke, in comments such as "nice image", but sometimes that's the reaction by the viewer (in fact, you stated similar in your response to another image with "Like em all. Great shots". So even the best of you occasionally gets caught up in that. And I must admit that I'm not sure every image, to be successful, needs symbolism, analogy, metaphor etc, although I have to give that more thought, I suppose.
As for me, I promise not to post any "pretty shots" ;D
Regards,
Marv
-
Marv, I said, "I like 'em all," because all of them are good street shots. Seamus is very, very good at this. If you're going to do street you can learn a lot from him. He blows it once in a while, and sometimes I think he's too quick to post something, but he's one of the very best street shooters on LuLa.
There's nothing wrong with pretty. The problem is with something that's merely pretty. If you'd like to use a shot to decorate a wall there's nothing wrong with merely pretty either. I see tons of that kind of thing every time I go to an "art fair," and it sells well, especially when the color saturation has been driven to the Marlboro ad level.
But there's a difference between photographs that are decorative patterns or mementoes of a tourist trip, and art. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again. A really good photograph gives you a feeling -- a jolt -- you can't put into words. And bottom line, that's the problem with trying to describe what makes a photograph good. You can't do it. It's like Potter Stewart trying to define hardcore pornography. He said he couldn't define it, but he knew it when he saw it. It's the same thing with any good visual art.
And as far as being critical of someone who's trying to learn, how is it going to help him if he posts some crap that never should have been posted and everyone says, "It's great," "Fine shot," "+1,"?
-
Russ, it looks like my "pretty tourist" shot (Just Another Parisian Afternoon (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=72206.0)) riled you up beyond its significance. I clearly stated there is no pretension (to be art), just a lovely moment. Or I missed the memo that all shots posted in that forum must be art?
-
Russ,
I agree with pretty well everything you said, in particular the point about a real good image giving the viewer that "feeling". And I also agree that a posted piece of crap should not receive "nice shot" "+1" etc. However, presumably the piece of crap is not so to the poster (or I'm sure he would not have posted), and often until someone provides him the constructive criticism that helps him understand that it's a piece of crap; why it;s a piece of crap and perhaps provides some pointers on how to capture the next image without it being a piece of crap, he will continue to take the same kind of images.
Regards,
Marv
-
Russ, it looks like my "pretty tourist" shot (Just Another Parisian Afternoon (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=72206.0)) riled you up beyond its significance. I clearly stated there is no pretension (to be art), just a lovely moment.
Just off hand I don't remember whether or not I commented on your Pont Neuf picture, but I liked it very much. I hope you were thinking of HCB's version when you made the shot.
Or I missed the memo that all shots posted in that forum must be art?
You're right! It makes sense, Slobodan. Any thinking tourist would rush to post his personal photographic mementoes on a forum titled "User Critiques."
-
Russ,
. . .presumably the piece of crap is not so to the poster (or I'm sure he would not have posted), and often until someone provides him the constructive criticism that helps him understand that it's a piece of crap; why it;s a piece of crap and perhaps provides some pointers on how to capture the next image without it being a piece of crap, he will continue to take the same kind of images.
Exactly, Marv. But the criticism has to be there, and lately it hasn't been there on User Critiques.
-
... Any thinking tourist would rush to post his personal photographic mementoes on a forum titled "User Critiques."
Sorry to disappoint you Russ, but ALL my photographs are my "personal photographic mementoes."
Whether I am a tourist in Paris, or tourist in New York, or tourist in U.S. National Parks, or look like a tourist in my hometown, I shoot not on specs, not in an attempt to create art, but I shoot what is around me, whatever catches my fancy, recording my personal experience, moments of my life, turning it into my "personal photographic mementoes." In that sense, aren't all amateur photographs mementoes? Souvenirs of moments of our lives?
-
I find the discussion interesting, but I think it has gotten a bit lost in the weeds... and there is a whole part of this forum dedicated to "is it art?". Ultimately, debating about if an image is art is not particularly relevant because at some level that is more about the viewer than the image. The question (as I see it) is if it is an effective image. That includes components of technical, compositional, and subject selection and how they all combine. Stating what works with an image, what doesn't and suggestions on how to approach it won't really change that much how people define art.
I'm somewhat new to this site, but lurked around the edges reading posts for a while before posting any of my own images. I get a lot out of the comments posted on all images regarding technical points, composition, and subject selection. I have received useful comments on the few photos I have posted for critique.
As to the contents of the critiques, perhaps a "sticky" post at the top of the forum giving guidelines and recommendations on how to post, and what to expect and what to contribute would help focus feedback. Guidelines might include pointers on numbers of images to submit for comment at a time (1 or 2, not 78 unless winnowing for a gallery show, etc), what types of comments to provide (e.g. instead of saying, "nice job" provide specifics about what worked; or, "image leaves me flat because the elements are disjointed and the image fails to convey a narrative or relationship among the elements").
Just my 2 cents... as a recognized noob to this forum.
-
Sorry to disappoint you Russ, but ALL my photographs are my "personal photographic mementoes."
Whether I am a tourist in Paris, or tourist in New York, or tourist in U.S. National Parks, or look like a tourist in my hometown, I shoot not on specs, not in an attempt to create art, but I shoot what is around me, whatever catches my fancy, recording my personal experience, moments of my life, turning it into my "personal photographic mementoes." In that sense, aren't all amateur photographs mementoes? Souvenirs of moments of our lives?
Not at all. From the very beginning the people you call "amateurs" have been the ones who've created photographic art. Many of them later became professionals, meaning they made a living from what had been an amateur pursuit. Remember, from your high school Latin: amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant, the conjugation of the verb "amor," to love.That's the root of the word "amateur," Slobodan. Amateurs are people who do the thing because they love it, not because it pays them a buck.
The only time I shoot momentoes is when my wife asks for them. The rest of the time I'm trying to create art. The failures far outnumber the successes and I'll never sell enough to cover my costs, but that's to be expected. What you just told me gives me a whole new outlook on your own work. I always thought you were trying to create art. Now I understand.
-
I find attempts to create art quite futile. You can't go out and say "today I am going to create art." It does not work that way. The most you can do is to try to express what's been brewing inside you, itching to get out, to the best of your abilities, and then let others decide if that is art.
-
Right. You don't just go out today and say "today I'm going to create art." You go out every day with a camera in your hand and LOOK. You throw frames around your environment as you pass through it. When things come together in one of those frames you lift your camera and shoot. I've quoted HCB maybe too many times, but I'll do it again: "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything."
Others don't decide for me what's art, Slobodan. I decide what's art.
And I'm really sorry to hear that you find attempts to create art so futile. I don't find it futile at all.
-
... I decide what's art.
Then you surely must be an artist. I am just a lowly amateur photographer.
-
I'm an amateur too, but I'm a long way from lowly.