c&c welcome

[shaylou]

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?

Yeah I think you pretty much summed it up.

 

[shaylou]

O, is there a licence for that ?

Yes and I heard I cost a lot. I'm saving up for mine.

 

[ceeboy14]

Well, I don't know of the personal problems you and Charlie seem to have for one another...nor frankly do I give two hoots and a holler. The image as it stands doesn't work for me because it breaks too many "norms." Notice I did not say rules as I believe there isn't a rule not to be broken in photography if the artist can make it work. As per the norms, it needed to be rotated, cropped and the very brightest brights toned down a notch. I cropped half the far left tower as it really wasn't doing anything to push the eye from one side to the other. I also got rid of the birds between the fence and the structures for the same reason.

I could work this image until the cows found the greener grass, and still not have a wow image or even one I would hang on a wall unless it was one to show my students what not to do. I understand the concept, but knowing how something should work and executing it so it does are quite different. How you perceive the image may be the most important, but once you present it to a forum, you lose that ownership perspective and my opinion have to acquiesce to everyone's take, be it from a "pro" or a "lay" person.

 

[pgriz]

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).

 

[pixmedic]

Well, I don't know of the personal problems you and Charlie seem to have for one another...nor frankly do I give two hoots and a holler. The image as it stands doesn't work for me because it breaks too many "norms." Notice I did not say rules as I believe there isn't a rule not to be broken in photography if the artist can make it work. As per the norms, it needed to be rotated, cropped and the very brightest brights toned down a notch. I cropped half the far left tower as it really wasn't doing anything to push the eye from one side to the other. I also got rid of the birds between the fence and the structures for the same reason.

I could work this image until the cows found the greener grass, and still not have a wow image or even one I would hang on a wall unless it was one to show my students what not to do. I understand the concept, but knowing how something should work and executing it so it does are quite different. How you perceive the image may be the most important, but once you present it to a forum, you lose that ownership perspective and my opinion have to acquiesce to everyone's take, be it from a "pro" or a "lay" person.

i am going to somewhat disagree on that last part. How a photographer feels about a picture they took may not ever change, nor should it if they feel they like it for whatever reason. If you post a candid photo of your child doing something that was personally special to you and got terrible reviews on it, would you suddenly stop thinking it is special and worth keeping just because some photographers pointed out all the technical or compositional flaws in it? Amolitor already stated that he knew he saw more in this picture than others would because he was there and saw parts of the scene we couldn't see in the picture. Unless i have missed a post somewhere, I am pretty sure Amolitor already admitted to this not being a great picture, just a picture he had personal interest in.

 

[timor]

O, is there a licence for that ?

Yes and I heard I cost a lot. I'm saving up for mine.

Do you need it ?

 

[LoriStead]

Wow... this thread got a little crazy, huh? Are you still interested in feedback?

Composition: It feels off... too much top and bottom. I would have loved to see the landscape view, but maybe there were things that didn't belong in the picture? Just seems like too much grass and fence...

Lighting and tone: The picture is too monotone... you need more contrast. I'm guessing the sky was very blue, because once black and white, your picture only has a few things that stand out in contrast (roof, power poles), which is a key to strong b/w images.

These, of course, are just my personal opinions/critiques - take them for only that.

Thanks for sharing!!!

I plan to post some pictures soon - feel free to give feedback, as well

 

[shaylou]

i am going to somewhat disagree on that last part. How a photographer feels about a picture they took may not ever change, nor should it if they feel they like it for whatever reason. If you post a candid photo of your child doing something that was personally special to you and got terrible reviews on it, would you suddenly stop thinking it is special and worth keeping just because some photographers pointed out all the technical or compositional flaws in it? Amolitor already stated that he knew he saw more in this picture than others would because he was there and saw parts of the scene we couldn't see in the picture. Unless i have missed a post somewhere, I am pretty sure Amolitor already admitted to this not being a great picture, just a picture he had personal interest in.

Your comparison is flawed. A picture of ones child invokes emotion that can be dear to the heart and remind one of a cherished moment making the quality of that picture irrelevant to the photographer. Whereas the pic in question holds no emotion.
I'm confused on something here. If the photographer saw something in the scene that we can't see, didn't he fail ? I mean the very Essenes of of photography is to capture and share, tell a store and so on...

 

[sleist]

If the photographer saw something in the scene that we can't see, didn't he fail ?

Success or failure depends on the goal, if it was achieved, how close one got, and if anything was learned in the process.
Unfortunately, none of this could be determined from the original post.

We all experiment. We all learn something - even from the failures.
We don't often post these experiments for C&C though.
If I posted an experiment of mine, I would explain what it was in the original post and why I was posting it.
How is anyone to really know what the photographer was thinking when they took the shot or, as in this case, what they were looking for when they posted for C&C.

This is a good example of how not to ask for critique.

 

[pixmedic]

i am going to somewhat disagree on that last part. How a photographer feels about a picture they took may not ever change, nor should it if they feel they like it for whatever reason. If you post a candid photo of your child doing something that was personally special to you and got terrible reviews on it, would you suddenly stop thinking it is special and worth keeping just because some photographers pointed out all the technical or compositional flaws in it? Amolitor already stated that he knew he saw more in this picture than others would because he was there and saw parts of the scene we couldn't see in the picture. Unless i have missed a post somewhere, I am pretty sure Amolitor already admitted to this not being a great picture, just a picture he had personal interest in.

Your comparison is flawed. A picture of ones child invokes emotion that can be dear to the heart and remind one of a cherished moment making the quality of that picture irrelevant to the photographer. Whereas the pic in question holds no emotion.
I'm confused on something here. If the photographer saw something in the scene that we can't see, didn't he fail ? I mean the very Essenes of of photography is to capture and share, tell a store and so on...

why do you say that this picture holds no emotion? amolitor said he found it interesting, and it held more meaning to him than it would to other people.
he found it compelling enough to photograph even though he knew others would not find it as interesting.
so...is it not possible that this picture could, in fact, evoke an emotional response from him when he looks at it?
I would say then that the picture in question does hold emotion, even if only for amolitor.
a picture of someone elses kid holds zero importance or emotional attachment to ME, but i would not say that the picture holds no emotion, because it obviously does to someone. this picture could be no different.
unless of course, you know amolitor well enough to speak for his emotional attachments. I don't myself, im just guessing here.

I wouldn't call it a fail, per se.
its only a fail if the person that took the picture sees no value in it.
if someone paints a picture that only they like, but they enjoy looking at it, is it a fail?
the picture might fail to tell other people a story, or evoke an emotional response from others, but as long as the person that took the picture enjoys it, i cant personally call it a failure.

 

[shaylou]

How is anyone to really know what the photographer was thinking when they took the shot

That's my point. It's the photographers job to show, express or simply reproduce a scene. If we look at this shot and don't get it and the photographer comes back and says that we don't get it because he left out things that matter then he failed in my opinion.




. This is a good example of how not to ask for critique.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

 

[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.

 

[amolitor]

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. It's a big world with lots of room for conflicting opinions.

That said, thank you all for taking the time to express an opinion. I truly do appreciate the time and effort.

 

[sleist]

If I have to explain it, then it's definitely a failure.

Well, I guess we know how you feel about this shot given all the explaining in post #6.

 

[LoriStead]

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?