yes the person is out of focus, and?

[newrmdmike]

thankyou trenton, but what you said cracked me up . . . whats not technically great about it? also though i wasn't aware that good photographs resulted from successfully following rules. i don't mean this as a smart-ace or anything, but really think its something that should be discussed, and is something we can learn from. just because someone said you can't have an out of focus subject in the foreground doesn't mean there can't be good photographs with that.

and nomade, should intentions be be taken into consideration? is that really important when considering a work for critique? and do you mean none of those items are in the photograph as a interesting object, or did you mean intentional? i also don't understand what you mean by parts of him are more obvious. he seems entirely obvious to me, and pretty equally blurred.


his4ever----

i don't think it hurts giving an explanation, so here goes. This is an editorial shot of a man who builds recycled homes, 70% of the materials is headed to landfills. this home he built has a studio with great skylights, i took this directly under the skylights. One of the requirements to live in this house or to lease it is that you be a working artist. Hence the toilet, which ironically was also headed to the landfill, then refired to make it warp and crack. the artist is the head of a universities ceramics dept. the warped boards are a good backdrop bc of texture etc, but mostly because he readily can get warped boards for free. They also are a reflection of the artist leasing the place, behind the siding is big mirrors . . . the leasing artist didn't like it, so they covered them up. if you have 10,000 imprefect anythings then you have a cool pattern you can make. the floor is in small segments because a lumber company gave him the 1-2 ft scraps from when they have 12ft lengths of something and cut off two feet to accomadate a order for 10ft segments.

the house is detached from the studio and is a treehouse, i have pictures of it in another thread somewhere.

 

[shorty6049]

i like it even though it was an accident, i agree with whoever said that it was good till you found out it was an accident, because, yah, its nice to have a photo turn out the way you planned instead of pass off a mistake as art, but i still like it because you wouldnt expect an object so close to the other elements to be out of focus when everything else is, so thats cool to me.. i like how raw it looks too

 

[newrmdmike]

i hate to pull a max bloom but you guys are ridiculous if you like something until you learn something about it, and feel differently afterwards. THAT TOTALLY GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING you should take into account when critiquing something. so if you liked Pollock and then realized he was splattering paint on canvas would you stop liking his work?

first i don't recall saying this is art. SECONDLY, i saw he was out of focus in the viewfinder, and just went with it . . . i realized what was going on before it became a negative, although i don't think it would matter. if you guys don't take advantage of something you see, whether its in the viewfinder or on a negative . . . please tell me why.

I'm going to ask that those of you who can't help but critique text go back and critique the photograph, because your not making statements that are dealing with THE FINISHED WORK. we aren't here to discuss how this image came about, but the image itself.

 

[hawee99]

yea i think it is a good photo. I havent read any text about it, I dont know where any text about that photo is. Where is it? But I think it is a dope (cool) ((nice)) picture. but one question, why is the guy out of focus. hahahahah just jokin. I like it. Obviously makes people think and question, and that's what good photos do. word

 

[newrmdmike]

i removed the text because it to greatly affected peoples critiques. . . but since someone asked to explain i did.

 

[Alpha]

I hate to pull a Max Bloom, but I love it. It's got great texture. Definitely print material.

 

[newrmdmike]

and max, so you know . . . i really loved pulling that max bloom.

and thanks man, do you any comments on photos not following rules? you pull quotes and text and stuff quite often, but i also think you gather from them that rules aren't end all solutions to photography and you certainly know that following the rule of thirds, having classic composition etc doesnt mean a good photograph . . . and that breaking those things doesn't mean a bad one.

someone around here had an ansel adams quote that said something like there are no rules to making good photographs, only good photographs.

also . . . do you think the text an artist provides with a work in regards to how it was created should be valid in its critique? (aside from your text indicated you completely missed your intended mark) or is the thing i should be taking away from this critique thread that you shouldn't say squat about your photo unless its absolutely necessary?

I know some authors who at readings have people pull outlandish meanings out of their text that could only come from absolute genius or a subconscious level. they choose to acknowledge it as intentional and that you not say "oh no, thats coincidence"

what do you guys think about that?

 

[Trenton Romulox]

Newrmdmike, for the record: I know that a shot doesn't have to follow the rules to be good. In my first post, I didn't really demonstrate how I feel accurately at all...

A shot doesn't have to follow the 'rules of photography' to be good. The rules are there, I think, as a general guideline, and not some holy doctrine that shall always result in top-quality results or anything like that. I love it when photographers break free from the shackles that these 'guidelines' sometimes impose, it's awesome to see shots like yours out there, most people would have deleted that after they took it and not even seen what beauty lies in your shot. My brother (much older, and been taking pictures longer than I, I've been at it a good four months HAHA), said it quite well a month or so ago, "Rules? There are no rules for history. I take a picture of where I've been, what I've done, what I've seen. Jay, you can't tell me what I've seen hasn't happened if there is a picture. Pictures aren't art, they're history. History follows no guide."

 

[newrmdmike]

man trenton, the last few sentances are really interesting to me. . . because photos can totally mis-construe history i think, i know. not in a literal sense, but in a journalistic sense and in how people will regard those events in the future. magnum photos website has some interesting quotes from various photogs of theirs on this, and its evident in their photos that they show a truth, but also not the truth. (if that makes sense)

by the way, this conversation needs to be in a seperate thread, so if we want to keep at it pm me and we'll start another thread, but i'd like to follow the new critique guidlines.

 

[nomade]

and nomade, should intentions be be taken into consideration? is that really important when considering a work for critique? and do you mean none of those items are in the photograph as a interesting object, or did you mean intentional? i also don't understand what you mean by parts of him are more obvious. he seems entirely obvious to me, and pretty equally blurred.

I am sorry I am givin a late reply, I don't mix between intentional or interesting, totally different words with different usage, why would I use one in the place of another.

However, I meant this focusing issue seems unintentional(quite purposeless), and even if it was intentional, the photo with this composure isn't interesting, I need to search for what would make you post this one here and defend it that way, I understood the situation, but I don't understand your composition, I don't understand it, the focus is not logical here. I don't get a feel out of this.

It doesn't feel good, some people like it, some don't, I don't like it or hate it, this one doesn't speak to me. And this is the bottom line, your intentions count for nothing, unless they match what I see here, unless this one delivers.

Critique isn't merely an opinion, I am assigning a value to your work, a personal one. And personally, this doesn't work for me.

Keep working, we all do things up to our own satisfaction and personal values, you like it, good for you. Others don't have to...

 

[ANDS!]

Photo is fantastic; wouldnt it have been so much better if it were on like a street corner or something - wishful thinking, I digress -

From a purely layman perspective, it really is a good shot, and something a person would want to keep and reflect back on. Even KNOWING the guy was out of focus (it was the first thing I went to as its in the threa ttitle) didnt ruin the picture - its called a "happy accident". . .noone here can say they haven't taken a picture that didnt come out the way they wanted, and instead came out with something better or just as good.

 

[The_Traveler]

i hate to pull a max bloom but you guys are ridiculous if you like something until you learn something about it, and feel differently afterwards. THAT TOTALLY GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING you should take into account when critiquing something. so if you liked Pollock and then realized he was splattering paint on canvas would you stop liking his work?

Not all photos are good/bad for the same reason. If this was a purposeful comment, I would have liked the picture because you used it to make a statement. If it was an accident, then it meant less because I was not responding to your wit and ability.

 

[shorty6049]

i just want to make myself a little clearer... i feel like some things are better if you dont know the story behind them, like if you saw a really cool piece of art, and you really liked it, then found out it was the result of a mistake the artist made and it was actually supposed to look like something completely different. would you feel the same way about it? i'm sure that some people would say yes, but personally i'd say no. but thats MY opinion of art i guess. i feel like there should be intent behind what is presented. If i took a picture with the main subject out of focus by accident, i probably would just end up deleting it. but you didnt, and thats fine with me, its a good photo, i just dont think you shoud tell US how to critique a photo...

 

[newrmdmike]

shorty, your wrong. i chose this . . . come august i'll put up the other shots from the thread and you'll find it was quite purposful.

critique the shot, not my text.

 

[abraxas]

Great. I was hoping this thread would come back to life.

I've had a bit of a change in outlook on this shot. I'd explain, but I'm really, really, beat right now and not feeling very substantive or having a firm basis in reality.