Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 26, 2013, 01:39:46 pm
-
Just to demonstrate I can stand a negative critique. Always interesting (and good) to see how others see your work.
My intention was to avoid the standard approach, with reeds as silhouettes, or no foreground at all, but to try a different one, which juxtaposes background and foreground, warm and cool colors. I guess I just ended up confusing viewers. I might try reprocessing it, to downplay the visual weight of the reeds and see how that works.
This is the original:
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3240/3100668340_7e65809e36.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/3100668340/)
November Sky (http://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/3100668340/) by Slobodan Blagojevic (http://www.flickr.com/people/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr
And the critique is attached:
-
re: The critique: +1 ;)
-
I would have demanded pistols at ten paces. ;)
-
Definitely a bold attempt. But like all bold attempts, there will be critics. I find that my eyes (and brain) are taxed - perhaps the image will grow on me with the passage of time.
-
... I find that my eyes (and brain) are taxed - perhaps the image will grow on me with the passage of time.
When it starts to fade? ;)
-
Great picture, the critic is an idiot.
Cheers,
-
When it starts to fade? ;)
Hopefully not.
The images that I enjoy the most, are those that leave me perplexed, and yet that I cannot forget. The brain is a curious thing - the more that you try to understand it, the less you do.
-
Great picture, the critic is an idiot.
Cheers,
Thanks, though I wouldn't say so. He is the editor of the Amateur Photographer (UK) magazine and, as such, has been involved in seeing, selecting, judging, critiquing tens of thousands of pictures. I think it makes sense to take into account what he says. As a minimum, it provides a certain angle, and indicates how others might see it as well (e.g., +1s above).
I still like the image, one of the few I printed and put on my wall. It was taken in November 2005, at a bike run with my daughter, through our neighborhood, thus might hold more personal meaning than to other viewers.
-
Great picture, the critic is an idiot.
Cheers,
Actually I thought the critic was being kind. :-)
Later,
Johnny
-
Actually I thought the critic was being kind. :-)
Hey, do not hold back, let us now how you really feel, I can take it. :)
-
The critique is probably OK if you are looking at an image once. However if you are putting an image on a wall, the last thing you want is an over resolved image. An image that looks the same every time you look at it gets boring very quickly. His critique is lousy advice and I hope the rest of opinion is better than I just read. I've seen a lot of safe photography in photography magazines.
Cheers,
-
No, it doesn't.
absolutely. IMO the best images entice you into a longer look revealing themselves as they go.
-
At the risk of having bricks thrown at me:
It has been suggested that at least part of what makes art so interesting and pleasing to view by human beings is precisely that some thought and interpretation is required on what that piece of art represents and means.
In this context Slobodan's image is a huge winner - a point eloquently expressed in the critique.
Ultimately whether the critic liked the image is besides the point.
For me, after an enjoyable few minutes viewing and pondering the image my interpretation of the image is that the sky is the ultimate subject here.
The fact is that this was not immediately apparent but ultimately that point is neither here nor there.
This image is interesting enough that valid alternative opinions could be forwarded as to what it really represents and what it is trying to communicate.
My $0.02 worth.
Tony Jay
-
I like the picture, better than 99.9% of modern paintings... I could have it on my wall, if I had a wall big enough.
As a photograph, well, not bad at all. Oversaturated maybe.
-
Shame, shame, Slobodan. You should have given it more thought at the shooting stage and overcome the problem. Who is this critic? It's what I've always said, the judges are always insane.
-
I really like this, although it is quite "busy".
Of special interest ... at least to me ... is that some of the white'ish cloud formations suggest birds flying, especially on the right side.
-
It was indeed an incredible sky, especially for November. You can see it in the OOC version. Below that is a re-processed version, with reeds less bright and colorful:
-
When the critic says "Any picture needs a subject that is easily and quickly identifiable," I think he left out a word. What he means to say is "Any trivial picture needs a subject that is easily and quickly identifiable."
I agree with Isaac, Kirk, and Tony.
Good shot, SB. If you want to make a bad photo, maybe you should try putting a boring old car behind a chain-link fence.
-
I really like this, although it is quite "busy".
I see the artist...
-
What a fantastic sky!
I really like some of the things you have done here Slobodan, or should I say attempted to do but didn't quite carry off. You must have thought while out on you bike with your camera and daughter, even though photography was not the main reason you were there, ah what an amazing sky, but that isn't enough, I need something in the foreground to give me good foreground interest, so what can I quickly find to create that infamous ‘juxtaposition’ that we all apparently seek in photography (I have grown to really dislike that word juxtaposition, photographers, very esteemed photographers not a million miles from here for that matter, have completely beaten the living daylights out of that word IMO) and that is where you have lost your focus/point of interest within the image. Do not get me wrong, it is a fine image as well as a happy memory of the event and one I am sure you will enjoy for many years to come. I would say though that it is a near miss, but a good solid stab at reaching for something excellent.
So what do I think is wrong with the image? I think that the tiny little bush or whatever it is at the bottom left corner is for its size within the image, very distracting, and also that the left vertical third of the image is quite a bit darker than the right third. I also agree that you have slightly over brightened and saturated the greens of the foliage in the centre of the image. I also suspect that you have added an extra and feathered circle of luminosity to the centre of the image, in an attempt to give the image a more foreground oriented yet centralised focus point. Or you may well have used fill flash to create this effect, but either way it doesn't fully work, because the sky is just so dominant in the background, no matter what you did with the foreground, the image is being controlled by that amazing sunset taking place in the background. This tussle between foreground and background has caused an uneasy conflict within the image, as to what it is exactly that you wish the viewer to rest their gaze upon, instead of creating the hoped for and aforementioned juxtapo... oh heck you know the word.
What do I think is right about the image? There is a lot to like about this image, the wonderful rich colours, the best use of what you had to hand, the amazing sky and the fact that you have tried to do something different and I assume on the fly and also at the same time looking after your daughter. This image is certainly not a failure by any stretch of the imagination, but for me the conflict of the dominant foreground against an even more dominant background, is what I believe stops this image rising from the really good to the really great.
I dream of getting a sky like that, but I also have nightmares of getting a sky like that when I am not expecting it and then running around panicking as I try to put something in front of it. It happens to us all. But when you are there with a great view and ready and waiting with the camera ready to go - you get nothing! Yet when your out fetching the groceries from the local superstore and walking back through the car park, to where you parked your car next to the recycling bins, BANG! It happens, the best sunset you have ever seen starts to take place behind the grey concrete walls of supermarket and all you can do is stare at it and swear under your breath, as you continue to pack your 'buy one get one free' cans of beans and dog chews into the boot of the damn car - ho hum!!!!
Dave
-
Judging by the length of your critique, your account must have been hacked by... never mind ;D
In all seriousness, thanks for the thoughts, Dave. When I juxtapose :P your critique with the magazine editor's one, there isn't much difference; yours is just more eloquent. Indeed, the flash was used, plus PS, to bring out the colors in the reeds. This also explains why the left side is darker than the right (further away from the flash).
Anyway, there is usually more to learn from mistakes than from successes. It is equally important to try something different from time to time, knowing perfectly well that only a small percentage of attempts will result in something worthwhile. Or, in other words, when you juxtapose the number of attempts with the number of successful outcomes... :P
-
It was indeed an incredible sky, especially for November.
I really am impressed by your "November Sky" image, and especially the sky itself. Did you happen to take a capture of just the sky itself ... so that the entire frame is filled with the sky?
If and when I get decent at masking and compositing, I hope to have captured an assortment of dramatic skies to serve as backgrounds for multi-layer composites.
-
What a fantastic sky!
...
I dream of getting a sky like that, but I also have nightmares of getting a sky like that when I am not expecting it and then running around panicking as I try to put something in front of it. It happens to us all.
Agree.
I am trying to be more intentional about having a decent camera with me as I go about life.
-
Judging by the length of your critique, your account must have been hacked by... never mind ;D
...the number of attempts with the number of successful outcomes... :P
I was pleased to read Dave's post... It is a good feeling to know that such thoughts are moving around in their various guises in many skulls on this planet, and found Slobodan's sense of the post much like mine... the good of the entire experiment including submitting/putting it out there, for me is the importance of that willingness to go elsewhere than the rules and/or framework of "Photography". I don't see "attempt", I see "experiment". I won't bore you with a rehash of a bit posted at But is it Art/ "Under the surface of the earth" topic, as I was already too longwinded there, but I did include links to two excellent essays I came across this morning that illustrate this simmering sense I have of a teeter totter with comfort zones of individuals known experiences on one side with the immense possibility of an explosion of vision of what "photography is/can/will be" on the other. The comfort zone is getting to be a small cold place when one thinks about the possibilities on the other. I wish I were two.
-
Well put, Patricia.
I see the issue as having to do with where your personal comfort zone is on a spectrum from "experiment" to "cliche." The magazine's reviewer strikes me as somewhere to the right of center on that line, while I'm more to the left. I like a pretty sunset as well as most other folks, but I find SB's experiment much more interesting because it does push my mind in directions that aren't well-trodden paths.
-
The leaves facing the camera seem quite lit up. Did you light paint this at all to get that effect?
-
The leaves facing the camera seem quite lit up. Did you light paint this at all to get that effect?
As I noted above, indeed, the built-in flash was used, plus PS' Color Range, to bring out the colors in the reeds.
-
The more the colors assail my senses, the more I like it...my query for the day is how the critic posted this on March 3, 2013?
-
...my query for the day is how the critic posted this on March 3, 2013?
It seems that a lot of magazines use that kind of calendar. If monthlies, you can actually buy a March issue already at the end of February. In this case, they are a weekly, so the March 3rd issue was available on Feb 26th. It also seems they are referring to the end of the week they are covering, not the beginning.
After all, traveling into the future seems to be the only way printed magazines can catch up with the instantaneous nature of the news on the Internet ;)
-
I want to ride that magic carpet so I can play the market better. All this up and down stuff is making me a bit anxious.
-
It seems that a lot of magazines use that kind of calendar. If monthlies, you can actually buy a March issue already at the end of February. In this case, they are a weekly, so the March 3rd issue was available on Feb 26th. It also seems they are referring to the end of the week they are covering, not the beginning.
I have an advert running in the AP for the March 3rd issue, nothing too grand you understand, but none the less it is in there, my first advert - have you seen it Slobodan I wondered? They are suppose to be sending me a free issue to show me the ad, so I will get to read your image review for real as it were.
They wanted me to have one of my images in the advert to add impact, but I thought for the size of it within the page, it would make the words less easy to see and read, so I thought I may as well stick with a simple set of words in a high impact colour contrast sort of thing - cost me £175 (around $250 US) for that little advert, and it only runs in one issue and for one week.
Slobodan, I know what you mean about the hijacking, but no it was only me and I thought your image deserved a more wordy/detailed review :)
Dave
-
Dave, I did not see the ad until you mentioned it (then I found it on page 88).
The trouble with those ads is that they are all grouped at the end of the magazine, after all the editorial content. So, once I am done reading the content part, I am usually done with that issue, i.e., I just skip the end of the magazine where all the ads are. Just like I fast-forward ads on Netflix and Hulu, btw. But, that's just me. You wouldn't know, of course, until you try. That's the only way to ultimately see how many responses you'd get.
Now, may I critique your ad, please? Yes?... Thank you. :)
Had I went through ad pages, I would have probably just skimmed through and ultimately skipped your ad. On the positive side, it is yellow, thus practically jumping off the page. On the negative side, the most prominent part of the ad are the words "Photography.info." Now, remember, my glance and my attention span for that ad are rather fractions of a second, thus my reaction would be: "I do not need any info on photography," and move on. After all, I am already reading a photographic magazine to get the info.
What I think you should emphasize instead is "Isle of Skye" and perhaps "Scotland." If anyone would be interested in attending your workshop, they would be precisely because they are familiar with those names (in terms of landscape photography locations). That is the main attraction and the reason to come to you. Among landscape photographers, Isle of Skye has a legendary status world wide. I mean, I've known it for at least the last fifteen to twenty years. Back in the late 90s, I flew from Moscow to Cornwall for a workshop (with Joe Cornish) because I already knew about Cornwall reputation as a landscape location. I would have preferred Skye, had there been a workshop there though.
Next: picture. I know it is predominantly a financial consideration, and you did the right thing by testing the water first, just to see if there is any interest that way, but for me THE ONLY WAY that would make me look at the ad longer than a split second, would be a picture. And not any picture, it would have to be a stop-me-in-my-tracks picture (which, luckily, wouldn't be too hard for you). I want a picture that would make me drool and say: "I want to go there and take such a picture myself."
I hope you do not mind my little ad critique. You don't? Fantastic! I knew you are a great guy! ;D
-
Thanks Slobodan, I didn't want to hijack your thread with my advert, so thanks for your review of it.
I don't buy the magazines anymore, but when I did (and I used to by a lot), I used to regularly buy AP among many others and know that around 2/3rds of the AP mag at least, is wall to wall advertising with microscopic text, in fact substantially more advertising than any other mag I have ever seen. So I sort of knew my little ad would end up being buried deep within the bowels of advert obscurity and towards the middle back of the mag, so that's why I went with the wording instead of an image, thought I was being clever I suppose and trying to get the most imapct for the buck.
But I agree, next time I will go for a an image advert and thank you very mch for saying I would be able to use a 'stop-me-in-my-tracks' picture ;D
Dave
-
I really am impressed by your "November Sky" image, and especially the sky itself. Did you happen to take a capture of just the sky itself ... so that the entire frame is filled with the sky?...
At your service, Sir! Slightly different angle though:
-
Now that's what I'd call a pretty picture.
But the original post is what I'd call a very interesting picture, worth spending time with.
-
Hard not to like that shot.
-
At your service, Sir! Slightly different angle though:
Now that is the shot I would have gone for - excellent!!!!
Dave
-
At your service, Sir! Slightly different angle though:
THAT is an impressive sky!
Tony Jay
-
I like this shot. I don't know what the editor is talking about. It is a "safezone" reply because images like that gather controversial opinions.
Keeping also in mind that critic opinions differ so much I'm not surprised. It sure isn't a traditional version of landscape. In a different kind of magazine
this could also be a spread. Have you written it was intentionally?
I so much prefer the first one. involves more brain activity ;)
-
I so much prefer the first one. involves more brain activity ;)
Amen!
-
...Have you written it was intentionally?
If you meant did I make it clear in my submission to the magazine that what I did was intentional, then the answer is no. Otherwise, it was indeed intentional, first the use of flash during capture, then emphasizing it further in PS, for pretty much the same reasons you mentioned.
Furthermore, now that I reprocessed it to downplay the reed section, I can only say that I feel my initial decision seems even more right. The "downplayed" version is neither here, nor there, i.e., reeds are there, but murky, indeed standing in the way, distracting from the sky.
So, ultimately, I'll stick to my guns (i.e., the original version), hoping that one day "in a different kind of magazine this could also be a spread" (thank you for that).
-
I think the final is, as has been mentioned, bold as hell. It's also a very consistent statement, and I don't think you can alter much without ruining it. That said, I don't much *like* it. I respect it, though.
The OOC one, though? That one I kinda like. It's completely different, all about muted pastels and soft light.
The composition feels, to my western eyes, vaguely related to an asian painting. It's probably just the reeds in the foreground which look like bamboo, and maybe something about the overall feeling of flatness in the perspective, or something. I feel like the muted tones and colors work better with that association for me than the popped neon look.
-
Hi Slobodan,
I think that small size may not do your picture justice. A lot of small details don't work well in small sizes. I bet the image is much better at full screen. One of the reason I hate small pictures!
Best regards
Erik