My dog - reflection

[terri]

I, too, believe that it will be nice as an enlargement in a frame (don't know the meaning of the word 'matte', but frame I do know ).

LaFoto, you crack me up! :LOL: Like so many of the good folks here, you know more than you think you do. Just maybe not the names for some of it!

I still think this image totally rocks exactly as it is! Nice that it has generated such interest, though.

Richard, I hope to see more of your work!

 

[LaFoto]

Ah! Thanks for telling me what "matte" means.
It's that thing that hasn't got a proper German word - we speak French when we speak about a matte, we call it a "passepartout" /pas-par-too/.

I haven't seen Richard around much lately - despite the fact that he also won last month's challenge... Where are you, Richard???

 

[ksmattfish]

I think that all the fuss about supposed distortion comes from believing the brain instead of the camera. Don't, the camera is much more likely to be accurate when it comes to reality than the human mind. Most likely a visit to the actual location would clear up any questions about why it looks the way it looks. The viewer thinks they know how the camera was held, how the building was angled, etc..., but unless you were there, you really don't.

I like it uncropped, and I like the inclusion of the vertical shadows to the right. Possibly it could use a little burning in the sunny highlights on the wall (not in the reflection), and to darken the vertical shadows.

 

[DanielK]

I think that all the fuss about supposed distortion comes from believing the brain instead of the camera. Don't, the camera is much more likely to be accurate when it comes to reality than the human mind. Most likely a visit to the actual location would clear up any questions about why it looks the way it looks. The viewer thinks they know how the camera was held, how the building was angled, etc..., but unless you were there, you really don't.

While I agree the mind is less accurate than the camera, I disagree with forcing perspective on the viewer even if that's exactly the way the scene looked in real life. Unless your intent is surrealism, forcing perspective only serves to make a piece just a little more awkward to look at than is necessary, in my opinion.

Again, unless surrealism or an unwieldy and somewhat coerced feel is the intent of the picture, I believe it's the photographers responsibility to edit certain things, even if that's exactly what it looks like in nature, out of a shot in order to achieve a good composition.

I'm not saying it's a bad shot or that he's a bad photographer. That's obviously not the case. But richard posted that picture in the critique gallery and not the photo gallery so I'm guessing he wanted some honest feedback for a picture he may have a problem with himself. So that's my honest feedback. I don't know that it's a "fuss", though saying so seems a bit disagreeable. It's something that's undeniably in the picture. Forced or natural, I believe it detracts from the composition, and if I were the photographer that's exactly the thing that I'd want to hear from a group crit rather than a stamp of "approval/disapproval" after a quick look.

Maybe I'm taking critiques more seriously than is appropriate for this forum. I suppose that's something I need to consider.


Daniel

 

[danalec99]

Maybe I'm taking critiques more seriously than is appropriate for this forum. I suppose that's something I need to consider.
Daniel

 

[Osmer_Toby]

Maybe I'm taking critiques more seriously than is appropriate for this forum. I suppose that's something I need to consider.

maybe it's your tone, not your degree of seriousness. a critique on the interenet, accurate or not, can come across as pompous if you're not real careful.

surely you don't mean for this to be so, but there it is.

 

[terri]

I don't know that it's a "fuss", though saying so seems a bit disagreeable.

Dude. You were the one who took the time to draw the red and blue lines and note them A), B), etc. to get your point across. I think the use of the word "fuss" here is not meant to be in the least disagreeable. Even babies can "make a fuss". It's a down-home kinda word, and our Matt here is from Kansas. He's a down-home kinda guy. He also happens to know his stuff impeccably. I wish it didn't seem like every time a poster takes a different point of view, you find them disagreeable - or worse.

Richard, if you're still bearing with us, I do hope you come back and post some more of your images. Your photo here is fabulous, and it brightened my day when I saw it.

 

[DanielK]

Unbelivable. :roll:

 

[Osmer_Toby]

Unbelivable. :roll:

sigh. i'm thinkin' you're not gettin' it, danielk.

 

[terri]

Unbelivable. :roll:

It is, isn't it?

:LOL:

 

[markc]

I agree with Daniel again. I was going to say something about this being the critique forum, but he beat me to it. It's nice that so many people like it the way it is, but the distortion is something both he and I noticed, so we are going to mention it.

And Daniel didn't draw the lines until RS said he didn't understand what Daniel meant. He was just illustrating, because words often fail when trying ro describe a visual concept.

I believe the distortion is the lens. I'm guessing RS used a fairly wide angle. The lens is ponted down, so he got converging verticals, but they are the opposite of what you would get when pointing up at a building.

It's a great shot, no doubt about it, but I thought this forum was about finding ways to make it better.

I know things didn't go well in that other thread (where I thought both parties were a bit snippy), but if you are seeing Daniel as being condensending here, my guess is that you are now actively looking for it, because I don't see it. Not saying that's the case, but it's something to consider.

 

[Osmer_Toby]

my guess is that you are now actively looking for it

not so. what i have observed around here lately is that the tone of many threads has gone quite sour. i am trying to point out to daniel that while his analysis may be accurate, the way he has conveyed his opinion has at times come across holier-than-thou. by this i don't mean to say he is solely responsible for the sourness, but by his own admission he seems to be observed by other members as such, when probably he does not mean for this to be so.

if you need an example, just look at the way you said primarily the same thing in your analysis without the negative reaction from others. and please don't tell me this is because he's new- there's a very real difference in tone between the two of you. perhaps this is just a part of daniel's style, and we all need merely to get used to it.

i think, though, if we stray too far from the path of respectful and sensitive, albeit necessarily accurate, when we critique, many on this board will drift away. one of the strengths of this site is the (usual) harmony amongst its members.

all that being said, daniel is welcome, at least in my book, and for whatever that's worth. i simply say that if he is feeling like a lightening rod, maybe taking a more gentle tac would serve him. he obviously has alot of knowledge, and it would be a shame to loose such a resource.

 

[markc]

Dude. You were the one who took the time to draw the red and blue lines and note them A), B), etc. to get your point across.

Looking at this again, this seems way out of line. He was responding to RS's request, and you harp on him about it. It really looks like Daniel is getting ganged up on here. To me, "Dude" is a rather disrespectful way to address someone you barely know when you aren't joking around.

Thinks suddenly when from feeling open and free to feeling rather cliquey.

 

[markc]

if you need an example, just look at the way you said primarily the same thing in your analysis without the negative reaction from others.

But I don't think Terri's comments were any better than Daniel's. I detect the same kind of tension in them. There are also other's who post in what I consider a condensending and very holier-than-thou tone. I don't say anything, because it hasn't been a real issue. I can live with it and it appears so can others, but why is Daniel being singled out?

 

[markc]

Again, I like Terri and hate singling her out, but this is what is in front of us.