c&c welcome

[amolitor]

I'm willing to explain after the first few reactions have been given. After a couple of reactions have been given already, pretty much all the value of presenting a picture without explanation is gone anyways, so if I get the sense that there's some interest or am simply feeling vain, I'll trot out some explanation. The point of asking for critique, for me, is those first few clean reactions, though, before the consensus has set in. Look, see, react. It's really worth something.

 

[amolitor]

I try never to lead the critique. I'm interested in what people see in the picture, not in what they can be persuaded to see. If I have to explain it, then it's definitely a failure. It's fascinating to me how text can direct the reaction to a picture. In a critique thread like this, you can easily tell who's read the thread before posting, because their opinion is cleared formed by assembling pieces of other opinions as much or more than by looking at the picture itself. I wouldn't be helping one bit by explaining myself.

I'm not very interested in how people feel about my motivations, or whether people think I am doing a good job of asking for critique but hey, free country. Feel free to continue to discuss.

Wow... and your opinion of those responding is clearly already formed. Why ask for a critique if you don't value the opinions and thoughts of others? I'm new to this forum... as of today, actually. One of the reasons I sought out a forum was to offer feedback and request it, as well. This is how we ALL learn and grow. This is how we are able to "borrow" the eyes of others to get more insight into our own work. If you like the shot, you like the shot. But that's not why you posted, right? You wanted C&C, right? If you just want praise, a "tell me what you love about this picture" may be a better way to post?

With all due respect: Work on your reading comprehension before you reply. I am getting seriously sick of having to parse out meaning that is already crystal clear, and explain that there is no hidden subtext, and, and , and to people who cannot and will not bother to read and understand what I have to say. You are jumping to unwarranted and simply wrong conclusions. My opinion of YOU is quite low, but strictly because of this particular snotty and unpleasant response based on.. I don't even know what.

I think I'll stop replying in this thread, the general tenor of it seems to have turned to 'andrew is a dickhead, I can't quite put my finger on why, but I think I'll take a **** on his head anyways' and that's just not very productive for anyone.

 

[pixmedic]

I try never to lead the critique. I'm interested in what people see in the picture, not in what they can be persuaded to see. If I have to explain it, then it's definitely a failure. It's fascinating to me how text can direct the reaction to a picture. In a critique thread like this, you can easily tell who's read the thread before posting, because their opinion is cleared formed by assembling pieces of other opinions as much or more than by looking at the picture itself. I wouldn't be helping one bit by explaining myself.

I'm not very interested in how people feel about my motivations, or whether people think I am doing a good job of asking for critique but hey, free country. Feel free to continue to discuss.

Wow... and your opinion of those responding is clearly already formed. Why ask for a critique if you don't value the opinions and thoughts of others? I'm new to this forum... as of today, actually. One of the reasons I sought out a forum was to offer feedback and request it, as well. This is how we ALL learn and grow. This is how we are able to "borrow" the eyes of others to get more insight into our own work. If you like the shot, you like the shot. But that's not why you posted, right? You wanted C&C, right? If you just want praise, a "tell me what you love about this picture" may be a better way to post?

where has he not valued other peoples critique of his work?
im really not understanding how that opinion was formed based on this thread.
I thought his explanation of the picture, why he took it, and why he didnt write a whole dissertation on it when he posted it was pretty easy to understand.

 

[sleist]

I'm willing to explain after the first few reactions have been given. After a couple of reactions have been given already, pretty much all the value of presenting a picture without explanation is gone anyways, so if I get the sense that there's some interest or am simply feeling vain, I'll trot out some explanation. The point of asking for critique, for me, is those first few clean reactions, though, before the consensus has set in. Look, see, react. It's really worth something.

I feel that one of the major benefits of asking for and providing critique is learning to critique you own work. Perhaps you feel differently.
I think that waiting until others render an opinion, and then deflecting it later on with excuses and explanations, short circuits learning to self critique.

IMHO, If you are going to say anything at all, say it up front.

 

[pixmedic]

I'm willing to explain after the first few reactions have been given. After a couple of reactions have been given already, pretty much all the value of presenting a picture without explanation is gone anyways, so if I get the sense that there's some interest or am simply feeling vain, I'll trot out some explanation. The point of asking for critique, for me, is those first few clean reactions, though, before the consensus has set in. Look, see, react. It's really worth something.

I feel that one of the major benefits of asking for and providing critique is learning to critique you own work. Perhaps you feel differently.
I think that waiting until others render an opinion, and then deflecting it later on with excuses and explanations, short circuits learning to self critique.

IMHO, If you are going to say anything at all, say it up front.

I think asking for "C&C" was perhaps a poor choice of words.
as amolitor has already explained, he was just interested in seeing what peoples initial reaction to the photo was without him having to "push" people in the direction he wanted with explanations. maybe what he SHOULD have said instead was "first reactions---GO" and left it at that.
I got the impression that this was never a picture he was looking for photographic critique on, but more of a "how do you feel about it", gut reaction.

 

[sleist]

I'm willing to explain after the first few reactions have been given. After a couple of reactions have been given already, pretty much all the value of presenting a picture without explanation is gone anyways, so if I get the sense that there's some interest or am simply feeling vain, I'll trot out some explanation. The point of asking for critique, for me, is those first few clean reactions, though, before the consensus has set in. Look, see, react. It's really worth something.

I feel that one of the major benefits of asking for and providing critique is learning to critique you own work. Perhaps you feel differently.
I think that waiting until others render an opinion, and then deflecting it later on with excuses and explanations, short circuits learning to self critique.

IMHO, If you are going to say anything at all, say it up front.

I think asking for "C&C" was perhaps a poor choice of words.

Yes it was, if it wasn't what he wanted. Even without it, he posted in a part of the forum were C&C is considered to be expected whether asked for or not.

For the record, I felt that the remarks in this thread about his book on composition were mean spirited.
That being said, that line in his sig raises the bar of expectations whether he likes it or not. A higher level of scrutiny is to be expected.
Otherwise he should explain himself up front.

 

[shaylou]

"why do you say that this picture holds no emotion?"

You compared a persons child to this picture of an in-adamant scene. I say that's a bad comparison. I have never been emotional over a fence, pole grass and so on. Perhaps others have but for me they hold no emotion. Heck you may cry your eyes out every time you see a fence for all I know.


."is it not possible that this picture could, in fact, evoke an emotional response from him when he looks at it"

Yes it is very possible and the fact it was stated that things were left out and that's the reason we don't see what he was seeing (that possibly evoked the emotion) is where I believe the problem with the shot started. Well other then the compositional issue. You see if there is emotional value and that value is what makes the shot special the photographer job is to capture that emotion and put it on display. If that was what make this shot special (to anyone) and it was not captured then the photographer failed. Failing a shot is not all that big of a thing. I have thousands of failed shots. The failed shots are what makes us learn.

This is not a personal shot at anyone just food for thought. Think about it, your on vacation and see a beautiful sunset and want to capture it to show all your friends back home. But opps something went wrong and the pic is bad. Sure the shot is still special to you but you failed in capturing the moment. Just because you have the memory of how it really looked doesn't make the shot any better, it's still a bad shot. I hope this makes a little sense to you.

" I would say then that the picture in question does hold emotion, even if only for amolitor." How exactly did you reach this conclusion? I guess you could have a thing for fences or poles or something but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people don't have emotion attachments to these things. Therefore the shot doesn't hold emotion like a pic of a persons child potentially does.

Once again this is not a personal attack on anyone, just keeping it real....

 

[shaylou]

Also, just to throw this out there. I continue to quite like the picture. It's not great art, I recognize that my reasons for liking it are to a degree personal, but I think it's pretty good and ultimately I like it.

As I study this great art I realize I miss as much as I pick up. One great thing about surrounding yourself with other photographers whether on a forum or in person is that you can help each other see things that you might of overlooked. That said I find it disappointing that you somehow see it pointless to share your thoughts on this shot. My guess is that your pride may of taken a hit from the "lay" peeps responding to the "authors" shot. Or perhaps there is nothing really good to point out. Either way no matter how good or bad I am, I will always lean on my fellow photographers for their input. Of course if you are beyond that and have no desire to help out fellow photographers that is your choice.

 

[pixmedic]

"why do you say that this picture holds no emotion?"

You compared a persons child to this picture of an in-adamant scene. I say that's a bad comparison. I have never been emotional over a fence, pole grass and so on. Perhaps others have but for me they hold no emotion. Heck you may cry your eyes out every time you see a fence for all I know.


."is it not possible that this picture could, in fact, evoke an emotional response from him when he looks at it"

Yes it is very possible and the fact it was stated that things were left out and that's the reason we don't see what he was seeing (that possibly evoked the emotion) is where I believe the problem with the shot started. Well other then the compositional issue. You see if there is emotional value and that value is what makes the shot special the photographer job is to capture that emotion and put it on display. If that was what make this shot special (to anyone) and it was not captured then the photographer failed. Failing a shot is not all that big of a thing. I have thousands of failed shots. The failed shots are what makes us learn.

This is not a personal shot at anyone just food for thought. Think about it, your on vacation and see a beautiful sunset and want to capture it to show all your friends back home. But opps something went wrong and the pic is bad. Sure the shot is still special to you but you failed in capturing the moment. Just because you have the memory of how it really looked doesn't make the shot any better, it's still a bad shot. I hope this makes a little sense to you.

" I would say then that the picture in question does hold emotion, even if only for amolitor." How exactly did you reach this conclusion? I guess you could have a thing for fences or poles or something but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people don't have emotion attachments to these things. Therefore the shot doesn't hold emotion like a pic of a persons child potentially does.

Once again this is not a personal attack on anyone, just keeping it real....

i reached that conclusion (having actually read amolitors posts) based on the fact that amolitor SAID he found this scene particularly interesting, and liked it even though he knew most people would not. he felt compelled to take the picture, and even mentioned it being a keeper, despite its flaws. you are basing your conclusion on the idea that a picture of a child is more emotionally evoking than a picture of a building. which is completely subjective. it is not a fact. it is totally based on different peoples feelings. what emotional attachment a picture "potentially" has doesn't really hold much weight, and is based purely on speculation.

you call my comparison bad...but your following statements completely confirms my comparison as true. just because YOU have never been emotional over a type of picture, does not exclude others from being emotional over it. you actually prove my point with your second paragraph.

I dont know why people keep rambling on about this photo being a failure. amolitor said a page back that he admitted that this photo is probably a failure to most people, and that he only liked it based on personal reasons. I really think people read way to much into what amolitor was asking for with this post.

 

[squirrels]

Wassamatter wid youse peeepul? It's clearly a portrait of Harvey. He's 6' 3.5" feet tall, and he likes to come up close. (see Harvey (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Invisible pooka rabbit! Just what this forum needed!

I have to say I'm enjoying this discussion. I'm glad you posted it amolitor.

 

[Tee]

I'm just a lay person so I won't comment.

 

[terri]

Also, just to throw this out there. I continue to quite like the picture. It's not great art, I recognize that my reasons for liking it are to a degree personal, but I think it's pretty good and ultimately I like it.

As I study this great art I realize I miss as much as I pick up. One great thing about surrounding yourself with other photographers whether on a forum or in person is that you can help each other see things that you might of overlooked. That said I find it disappointing that you somehow see it pointless to share your thoughts on this shot. My guess is that your pride may of taken a hit from the "lay" peeps responding to the "authors" shot. Or perhaps there is nothing really good to point out. Either way no matter how good or bad I am, I will always lean on my fellow photographers for their input. Of course if you are beyond that and have no desire to help out fellow photographers that is your choice.

This is an incredibly presumptuous response. You are taking what you want from what has been posted and twisting it to get it to fit your position.

Either way no matter how good or bad I am, I will always lean on my fellow photographers for their input. Of course if you are beyond that and have no desire to help out fellow photographers that is your choice.

Well then, bully for you. This is YOUR choice, YOUR approach, and if you don't ever feel you can make your own judgment call on your work without leaning on others' input, perhaps you may ultimately find yourself artistically stymied and not understand why. You're also relatively new to the forum, or you would think twice before accusing one of our more active, regular posters of having no desire to help out fellow photographers. How you can arrive at this conclusion based on a thread where his own work is posted is beyond me.

There are two schools of thought regarding approaches to critique. One is to post your image and give lots of information about it - your camera settings, your intentions with the shot, and whether or not you believe you met those intentions, and why.

The other is what we have here: an image is posted with little or nothing offered up. The poster retains much of the background, and still asks for objective C&C. It puts the burden on the viewer, yes. You get no help, no comments to guide you along with what you think the poster is trying to get you to see.

TPF has had specialized critique forums in the past where both of these approaches were put into play - and both forums ultimately failed, because of the large number of members who prefer one style over another. Some people don't want to feel led around by the nose by too much information, and others assume a negative attitude by a photographer who offers up nothing but his work. It led to very rambling and ineffective critique threads.

This is a good example of the latter.

 

[pgriz]

I see two towers, which appear to be for radio communication, besides several buildings two of which look like hangars. Foreground consists of a chain-link fence topped by barbed wire. Lower quarter of the image is a field of grass, edged by another chain-link fence with barbed wire. Pretty much all the objects in view appear sharp, so a small aperture was used giving a deep dof. Exposure is good, with strong whites, deep darks and a full range of grey tones. Light fall-off at the sky may indicate a polarizer was used to darken the sky. Position of the sun was about 45 degrees to the right, and about the same angle above the horizon.

From a content point-of-view, my eye gets attracted first to the bright roof at the middle of the image, then scans over to each tower, then the lower fence, then returns to the dark hangars at the back. I do not see any visual connection (shape, tone, line) between the elements, other than their proximity to each other visually. The image, in fact can be divided into 2 horizontally, the upper part being mostly empty sky, and the lower part has all the ground-based elements.

Looking at the picture subjectively, the visual prominence is occupied by the two towers, with stuff in between. However, there is nothing in the image which tells me why these towers are there, why they are important to the photographer, or whether there is a context that should be interesting me. As a pattern play, I don’t see much pattern. As a shape/texture play, there is some texture and shape, but nothing that I can put together as a pleasing composition. I am not sure what I should be looking at or noticing.

Andrew’s comments in post #6 shed a little light on what I should be seeing, but the balancing exercise is ruined in my opinion by the mass of dark buildings and bright roof in between, which seem to intrude. The fence appears to be visual afterthought, and does not seem (again in my opinion) to tie in together very well with the towers. Perhaps if the light was from the left and behind the photographer, the buildings would be much lighter in tone and therefore less “heavy”, and intruding. Some mist or fog would also serve to bring our attention to the foreground elements.

This may be one of those situations when several visits are needed until the right conditions exist to let the vision come through clearly.

 

[amolitor]

Thanks, pgriz. I appreciate your thoughtful thoroughness!

 

[shaylou]

i reached that conclusion (having actually read amolitors posts) based on the fact that amolitor SAID he found this scene particularly interesting, and liked it even though he knew most people would not. he felt compelled to take the picture, and even mentioned it being a keeper, despite its flaws. you are basing your conclusion on the idea that a picture of a child is more emotionally evoking than a picture of a building. which is completely subjective. it is not a fact. it is totally based on different peoples feelings. what emotional attachment a picture "potentially" has doesn't really hold much weight, and is based purely on speculation. you call my comparison bad...but your following statements completely confirms my comparison as true. just because YOU have never been emotional over a type of picture, does not exclude others from being emotional over it. you actually prove my point with your second paragraph. I dont know why people keep rambling on about this photo being a failure. amolitor said a page back that he admitted that this photo is probably a failure to most people, and that he only liked it based on personal reasons. I really think people read way to much into what amolitor was asking for with this post.

My god give it up buddy. You are arguing that a fence "potentially" hold more emotional value the someone's child. Would you like to debate whether the sun will come up tomorrow? You obviously have a some sort of tie with the op and my guess is that's the reason you are not subjective. Fan club comes to mind....