Discussion in 'General Critical Analysis' started by newrmdmike, Jun 24, 2007.
ok, the other critique thread got archived, so, heres the shot again.
hmm. . . abraxas i wish i understood what you meant really. i'm guessing you really dislike it. but thats okay!
but so you know it wasn't as contrived as it appears, that toilet and that chair were already there.
why is it a more appropriate shot for the general gallery in your mind?
If I had just come across this picture, I would have thought it was a good, purposeful joke on the viewers. Found street scene, two main elements, an out-of-place toilet and a man, but the one we expect to be the center of attention is OOF. Ho, ho, Quirky.
Unfortunately, I read that it was an accident so that takes some/all of the punch out of it for me and it recedes from an intentional bit of humor.
its interesting to me that you liked it until you found out it wasn't interesting. EDIT INTENTIONAL, NOT INTERESTING
do note that there are shots in focus, and that out of the shots from the set i chose the one that wasn't in focus.
i'm glad you told me that though, bc i had considered not mentioning why he was out of focus . . . in the future i'll take credit for the good mistakes
can we please keep this thread free of irrelevant conversation so that people don't have to wade through a bunch of social discourse in order to read a critique?
If this was purposefully made or chosen, I would have thought the photo had an editorial purpose, making some comment about the way the viewer focuses on what the viewer thinks is important.
I like it in an odd type of way. If I were to look at it in a very PPA type critical way I'd say:
1. Perspective off in lower half. (Hard to fix I know, as it's fine in upper half).
2. What looks like a smudge blur (on lens) over guy's face.
3. Oddly dark in far upper left corner.
But the REAL me says.
1. I didn't really even notice the tilt at the bottom until I searched for faults.
2. I dig that the guy's face and hands are blurry. These are two things that really tell alot about a person, and in this photo, he's mysterious. Makes me want to look harder, hoping I can make out some detail.
3. The darkness in the corner wasn't noticed until I went "ctitical".
And I also couldn't give a bean if the photo was purposeful or a happy accident. It makes not a bit of difference on whether it is technically good, or enjoyable.
And that is something I think people miss when they try to "critique". A critique is not about going in search of flaws. Critique is as much about feeling as it is about rules.
And my feeling is, is that it's interesting enough to look at several times. And for some unknown reason, the blurry guy makes me smile.
elsapet, thankyou. i agree so much about the feeling in a photo being much more important than how it holds up to intense critical technique. I believe that once you look at photos TOO in depth you may be making them into something they are not, or dumbing them down.
part of the reason it was composed the way it is was in order to create an unsettling effect. coupled with an out of subject in the foreground i enjoyed it much more. the odd dark marks i also enoy, but only because of how blatantly present they are.
thankyou very much for your critique, its nice to see a romantic vs. classical take on a piece from the same person.
Aight listen, the guy has a lot of weight in this photo and affects the balance, he's obviously the subject, him being out of focus in a way that doesn't seem intentional, because there are parts of him that are more obvious, makes me look at the toilette and the chair, none of them is put in this photo as an interesting subject, if I were you I'd try to focus on the man and make other objects oof, this way this photo maybe is more interesting...
It is strange in a way that doesn't make it a good photograph, rather a mistake.
Separate names with a comma.