c&c welcome

[cgipson1]

professional photographer?

O, is there a licence for that ?

Unfortunately, no! Or it is unlikely we would have so many... lol!

 

[terri]

Amolitor is just playing with us. This picture is not of "wow" category. It is a compositional experiment, however I don't know if not we are the subjects of this experiment.

^^ This. Thanks, timor.

People, before this thread spirals out of control, please keep the comments helpful and objective to the image at hand. The OP is saying it's not the best, he's experimenting with a composition he thought looked interesting at the time he shot it - and he's welcoming discussion, AND edits. It's all good.

There is a particular poster who shouldn't even be commenting since he cannot remain objective, which sidetracks good discussion. :thumbdown:

 

[pixmedic]

strangely enough....and I dont know if this was an intended effect on us or not...
but my eyes are drawn to a triangle formed by the two towers and the fence post.
every time I look at the picture.
as soon as the fence or a tower is cropped out, I just don't see anything in the photo.
this photo only works for me as it was first posted.

 

[amolitor]

The triangle is precisely what I was going for, in fact. As Derrel points out, the towers definitely crowd the edge of the frame, and I think moving slightly further right to compress that might have helped. I tried it over there but either didn't like it as much or was constrained by the location in some way, I forget.

Another point to perhaps take away: The center of the frame is actually very interesting, there's a strong subject there. It just happens to be mostly hidden behind the nearer building. This makes it worthless to you all, the viewers who were not there, of course. It IS to an extent what was drawing my attention, and helps to explain why I made this picture. I see it as two towers and a fencepost framing two very very large hangars in the distance -- you do not, because you can't really see the hangers. The picture is a lot better for me than it is for anyone else, whatever that even means.

I can explain my experience of the picture, but I can't make you experience the picture the way I do.

 

[hopdaddy]

Man, Did I ever miss the Boat on this one ...LOL. What I see is an Environmental shot . I see a Great Blue Heron (some what lower left) ,Living in a restricted to the public ,Enclosure . Kind of ,"Man might take the land over ,But I'm still going to live here " Bird Mentally . Oh well .

 

[amolitor]

Hah! That is actually a small piece of trash on the fence Good eye!

 

[Derrel]

SNIP> The picture is a lot better for me than it is for anyone else, whatever that even means.

I can explain my experience of the picture, but I can't make you experience the picture the way I do.

Not to sound flippant or glib, but that is the ESSENCE of a memory snap, or a snapshot, or a for-the-record shot, or a recording. I dislike the loaded word "snapshot", and so have provided alternate terms like "memory snap", and "for-the-record shot", as alternatives to describe the type of photographs that millions of people take, make, snap, or record, using whatever camera they have with them.

I'm not trying to classify this as "nothing more than a snapshot"; no, that's not my goal here, but it is worth considering that there *is* a type of photograph in which the photographer, the shooter, has a degree of personal involvement, or personal investment, in the scene, or the place, or the trip, or the moment--and many times, that personal involvement/investment, is really the most important reason for the photo having been made or taken. Notice the use of the word "made" and the word "taken".

If I am right, this photograph was "made", as in created with at least a modicum of thought behind it, but the fact that the creator states the picture is, "A lot better for me than it is for anyone else," sort of hints at the reason for the creation of this image. It has an off-putting vibe, a disconcerting feel...it has weird balance...it is built around a discordant vibe...deliberate or not, methodically constructed or instantaneously snapped, this photograph gives off a discordant, off-kilter vibe. It is what it is.

Now, as amolitor mentioned a week ago...imagine if this photo were part of a series of similarly-made photos...

OMG, he could pitch it as "Art," with a capital A, and people would buy it!

 

[sleist]

I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone else's take on it! One of my fundamental beliefs about composition is if the lay person can't feel it, it's not there, at least not for that lay person, and no amount of "explaining" is going to produce it. My remarks were entirely about how *I* see it, not how you should see it.

I'm uncertain how to take this comment. It sounds a lot like you are dismissing the comments because they came from "lay people" who aren't capable of understanding what you were going for, despite them knowing from a "gut reaction level" that the photo doesn't work. Is that what you are saying?

Certainly not, quite the opposite. The lay person's opinion is the only one that matters. If it takes some sort of Art Expert to "get it" or it requires some long explanation from the artist to make sense of it, the work's no good. It's relative, to an extent. Ultimately, if I like it, I'm ok with that. One can, and I have, argued that work isn't successful unless, as a general rule, lots of laymen can "get it" to some reasonable degree without much struggle. That doesn't prevent me from taking pictures for myself, though. There's a dichotomy here, and I'm ok with that too.

But honestly: "if the lay person can't feel it, it's not there" <-- I have to say, I am puzzled as to how this could possibly have been so completely misconstrued. It seems crystal clear to me.

Thanks for the explanation. Wasn't my intent to stir the pot.

 

[runnah]

 

[amolitor]

I'm with ya, Derrel. No offense taken.

One of the many weird little corner topics that interests me is that the photographer invariably has a different relationship to the photograph than anyone else. This is, I think, the basic reason that it's so hard to really get a handle on your own work. Since it's true of every picture, it's certainly true of this one.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

I'm going to dive right in on this one. I've looked at this picture way longer than I would normally look at it, in the spirit of helpfulness.

I have the image open in another tab so I can switch back and forth as I type this out.

Basically, the first thing I "see" are the towers. They demand attention. They are taller than everything else in the picture, and also darker. So I want to take in these two towers, as they offer a balance in the composition. But I keep getting caught up on the micron of space between the left tower and edge of the frame. If you framed this picture, the tower on the left would likely be cut off. I don't think you left enough room for the subjects, especially on the left side.

I also find the foreground black line in the fence (the pole) to be a bit distracting. This image would be easier for me to digest, and like, if there was more room on the borders, and the black area in the fence was cloned out.

 

[sleist]

I would have shot it horizontal and cropped it square.
Among other things.

 

[shaylou]

lol.. Amolitor wrote a book on composition! Look in his sig!

And I'm sure it's a great book.

I call it as I see it. This "balance" is actually the part that doesn't work imo . I understand balance in composition but that balance can be taken too literally is some cases , overwhelming the overall compositions to a point that the subject is lost and forgotten. Your eye bounces back and forth between the two distractions. This takes away from the shot to me. It's just my opinion. This was a critique.

 

[shaylou]

Funny you say that...he wrote a book on composition.

Awkward. Lol

 

[shaylou]

I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone else's take on it! One of my fundamental beliefs about composition is if the lay person can't feel it, it's not there, at least not for that lay person, and no amount of "explaining" is going to produce it. My remarks were entirely about how *I* see it, not how you should see it.

Or it could be that us "lay people" don't see anything good about it because there isn't anything good about it.
If this was an experiment then you had to start with the idea that it was going to work or not work or possibly fall somewhere in between. The notion that everyone is wrong (for the most part) pollutes the accuracy of the experiments conclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong but this was a critique post right?