Brutally Honest Critique Section

[Hertz van Rental]

Sorry I posted the picture here I didn't realize this was for text. It was inappropriate and I apologize for it. It was meant as a joke.

Hey, this is a Photography forum. Pictures are always welcome.
As to the picture itself. Whether or not it is too dark depends upon what mood you were trying to achieve.
So what mood or feel were you going for?
That put's the ball back in your court

 

[mysteryscribe]

In this case: past your prime, no longer useful, metamorphisis (probably spelled wrong), Isolation. All those dark themes. It's actually a poster. At one time, right after I retired, a did a few of them when I first started with retro equipment.

It was shot with a retro polaroid 160 which I converted to 2x3 sheet film. Shot on a sheet of film cut from a roll of 120 asa 100 arista edu....then developed in a peanut butter jar which I converted to a daylight tank, then scanned into my computer on a flat bed scanner with a back light I made myself. AFter that it was colorized.

But way to old and fat for tennis lol

It was all made from things other people had more or less discarded, or they were used in ways never intended by the manufacturer.

 

[terri]

In this case: past your prime, no longer useful, metamorphisis (probably spelled wrong), Isolation. All those dark themes. It's actually a poster. At one time, right after I retired, a did a few of them when I first started with retro equipment.

It was shot with a retro polaroid 160 which I converted to 2x3 sheet film. Shot on a sheet of film cut from a roll of 120 asa 100 arista edu....then developed in a peanut butter jar which I converted to a daylight tank, then scanned into my computer on a flat bed scanner with a back light I made myself. AFter that it was colorized.

But way to old and fat for tennis lol

It was all made from things other people had more or less discarded, or they were used in ways never intended by the manufacturer.

Just as an example of the kinds of discussion that might come in the Critique Forum, let's pretend you posted your image there, including your explanation of what you were trying to accomplish with mood. Without your explanation, I would have viewed this image as an absolutely lovely still life, and given you a :hail: for technique. (I'm an alt-processes girl in love with film in general and Polaroid processes in particular, so this image is special to me. Truth be known, I immediately thought "image transfer", and I was wrong.) :razz: So, I could not pull anything "dark" from this, emotion-wise. It speaks more of the tug of gentle nostalgia, which is usually benevolent in nature. In that regard, you might believe this image failed. I still applaud it, and loudly, but it might fall flat to you as an artist - if this was not the reaction you intended.

Aside from all that - welcome to TPF, and please post more of your images. You do beautiful work!

 

[mysteryscribe]

The truth is a picture isn't as much what I see in it, as what you see in it. It's more like a chinese restaurant menu or a buffet, than a burger and fries at McDonalds. That's why I probably don't understand critique so well.

A good photograph, in my opinion, is a personal experience for everyone who views it. Like a painting everyone sees something different in it. Unless it is an illustration of a camera part or something like that.

The reaction I intended when I shot it was to have people stop at my festival booth and look around. What I see in it is what I wrote, but that doesn't mean you can't see and enjoy it on a different level. I hope on some level for some reason people find some value in it.

In other words the picture speaks for itself. Just my opinion.

 

[terri]

What I see in it is what I wrote, but that doesn't mean you can't see and enjoy it on a different level. I hope on some level for some reason people find some value in it.

In other words the picture speaks for itself. Just my opinion.

I actually agree with you on that count. Which is why personally I don't bother much with the critique forum, just put stuff out there. I have also partcipated in enough arts festivals to know that the wonderful variety of people's reactions is going to constantly surprise me.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I once sold a very nice still life of a country scene to a lady on Saturday... She was back on sunday for a refund....The colors didn't match her bathroom. I was humbled by it all.

 

[terri]

I once sold a very nice still life of a country scene to a lady on Saturday... She was back on sunday for a refund....The colors didn't match her bathroom. I was humbled by it all.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I guess that proves what they say, the real critique is with the checkbook or paypal now.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

The truth is a picture isn't as much what I see in it, as what you see in it. It's more like a chinese restaurant menu or a buffet, than a burger and fries at McDonalds. That's why I probably don't understand critique so well.

A good photograph, in my opinion, is a personal experience for everyone who views it. Like a painting everyone sees something different in it. Unless it is an illustration of a camera part or something like that.

The reaction I intended when I shot it was to have people stop at my festival booth and look around. What I see in it is what I wrote, but that doesn't mean you can't see and enjoy it on a different level. I hope on some level for some reason people find some value in it.

In other words the picture speaks for itself. Just my opinion.

What you tried to put into your picture is what you have already outlined above.
If people look at it and see approximately the same thing then you have succeeded in your aim.
If the picture 'speaks for itself' and people see something completely different then you have failed.
The fact that people see something in your picture cannot be claimed as a victory unless it is what you want them to see, otherwise photographs become nothing more than Rorschach images.
It is exactly the same as writing a murder mystery only to have other people interpret it as a manual on bookshelf building.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Im so glad you brought up writing because it makes a very good point. For instance, If I am describing a place my hero might live, I might do it this way.

In the gravel parking parking lot of the two story brick bulding he called home, Jed slipped out of the urine yellow car. The neighbors told him the building had been built in the twenties and he certainly couldn't dispute that. His space was in the center with one neighbor on each side.

The first floor had once been a consumer finance office and the top had been the workshop of an eye glasses lens grinder. At that time Jed was using both. One as a cut rate studio, and the other as a mostly empty apartment.

That discription is intentionally vague. It requires the reader to participate in the story. He will forever see some building that he is familiar with whenever I mention the studio/apartment again.

I think photography is like that. Everybody can see something different without the picture being a failure. but then that is just my opinion.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

That discription is intentionally vague. It requires the reader to participate in the story. He will forever see some building that he is familiar with whenever I mention the studio/apartment again.

But the reader will see a building - he won't image the protagonist living up a tree, in a dustbin or on a desert island. So although you have left the description vague, it is only vague up to a point. There are certain words in there that put a limit on the vagueness.
Photography is the same. The photographer sets the parameters within which the viewer can exercise their emotional response. You can give the viewer a fair degree of freedom or very little depending, but you still set limits.

 

[mysteryscribe]

You have to love open discussion: now we can agree totally. A photograph in my opinion says yes this is a tree, the viewer decides if its a magic tree or a dying oak..... I think everyone was saying the same thing but zeroing in on different parts as more important than other parts.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

You have to love open discussion: now we can agree totally. A photograph in my opinion says yes this is a tree, the viewer decides if its a magic tree or a dying oak..... I think everyone was saying the same thing but zeroing in on different parts as more important than other parts.

Not quite. You still haven't grasped what I'm saying and continue coming at it from 'everyone interprets a picture in their own way'.
The viewer can decide if it is a magic tree or not only if you let him.
Or you can show him it is a magic tree so he has no choice.
Or you can show him that there is no possibility of it being magical.
It all depends upon how you as the photographer represent the tree and what you want the viewer to experience.
It's just like in a book. If there is a tree in a story it can only be magical if the author allows it to be. If there is no place for magic in the story then the tree can't be magical.
Is there room for a magic tree in a James Bond story? I don't think so. Or at least not if it is a James Bond novel as we know it.
When you take a photograph you do so not through a random impulse but because what you see makes you want to take a picture of it.
It's the same as writing a novel. You have a story, or at least a plot, in mind when you do - unless you have an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters and a lot of time on your hands.
The true art of Photography is having some insight into why you want to take the picture and having the ability to communicate this to the viewer through the image.

(And this is even without getting into the duality of Photography.
A photograph of a tree is a symbolic representation of all trees and a true record of a specific and individual tree at the same time )

 

[mysteryscribe]

And I dont think your definition of photography covers what I mean. Your definition is way to much of illustration photography for my taste. I prefer to think of photography as an art, not a science. But then thats why rational men don't go to war.

If you shoot a picture of a flower because you like the shadow but I buy it because the colors match my walpaper and I like it. Are you going to refuse to sell it to me because I don't see your vision.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

And I dont think your definition of photography covers what I mean. Your definition is way to much of illustration photography for my taste. I prefer to think of photography as an art, not a science. But then thats why rational men don't go to war.

If you shoot a picture of a flower because you like the shadow but I buy it because the colors match my walpaper and I like it. Are you going to refuse to sell it to me because I don't see your vision.

I know exactly what you mean. And I am not trying to define Photography here. Nor am I talking about people buying pictures.
(If someone wants to buy one of your books for no other reason than it is just the right size to put under the leg of a table to stop it wobbling, then you will take the money but consider the buyer to be a moron. And possibly feel a little insulted.
The same goes for pictures.)
To get back on topic.
Let's start with first principles:
What exactly do you believe you are doing when you take a picture?
Do you believe it to be a totally random act? That you take pictures of things whether you like them or not?
Or do you believe that your choice of subject is dictated by personal preference?

As for Art and Science - they have an awfull lot more in common than you seem to realise.