CC welcome take II

[Derrel]

SNIP>My model for this sort of image design is a still life oil painting of a certain sort. The painters will put the still life against a plain background, but then create all manner of vague shapes and colors, basically just setting a mood with abstract masses of color in the background. You hardly notice the background unless you're looking for it -- you see it only as a plain wall, or some vague forms, but in reality it's a riot of moody colors and shapes back there, but rendered subtly.

And yet, this is a monochromatic rendering of the scene, shown with low-contrast. Also, unlike in much painting, where the background can be rendered as "out of focus" as the painter desires to render it, in this photo, the background elements are shown just barely out of focus...the background in this shot is easy to read and decode...and the "still life" part of the scene, the grass??? It makes up what? Possibly two percent of the entire frame? The ugly, disjointed, discondant background is almost all I can look at, and I think, "Wow...what a crappy image...why would anybody make this shot like this???"

Again...this shot lacks a clear subject. And the "relationship aspects" you saw when you were there??? You have failed to render them in any type of compelling manner. What you saw was one thing. Once again, let me offer my opinion: you have utterly failed to communicate anything in a compelling manner. You say the shot is bad as a thumbnail, but is better when seen larger. Ummm...yeah...uh-huh...

I believe it was Ansel Adams who used to tack a possible image up on his darkroom door, to see if he really "liked" the image, to see if it could stand up to repeated viewings, over days. I want to ask you--do you really think this image would stay tacked up for more than two or three days before being taken down? and once removed from public view...would it be placed in the trash bin, or in the portfolio pile?

You stated: "This is a rare picture that I think is utterly worthless in the thumbnail, but fairly interesting (to me) in larger sizes. The subject such as it is, is tonally confused with the background and fairly finely detailed and difficult to see at all in smaller sizes."

Okay...so, the "subject" is supposed to be some pampas grass, so that's 2% of the frame. The rest is based on a color-wash background theory borrowed from still-life painting, yet we get a photograph, done in dull, flat-gray,monochrome. If this is "fairly interesting" to you, then I have to think that you must indeed be a very open-minded fellow, or very enamored of pampas grass...

I honestly can not tell if you are putting us on with this or what; this is the SECOND DAY in a row that you have posted this SAME PHOTO, in two different threads, asking for C&C. I have to ask myself ,"Why? What the heck is he going on about with this? WHY has he made two, separate, individual threads for the same picture?" Anyway...it's interesting. You may have made several decisions when you composed the shot, and yet that doesn't mean they were good decisions. Being deliberate and willful does not mean the actions are good,right, or even advisable. Sorry man, but this photo is one I would just let slide into the shadows...

 

[amolitor]

And I have gotten some interesting critiques and comments, so, I think success has been achieved, eh? I, at least, think I got some nice commentary, and I appreciate it. I don't think I am "talking it up" I think I am pretty much fully aware of the flaws, and I'm fairly sure I've made it clear that I am aware of the flaws. Talking about it isn't the same thing as talking it up, as I understand that idiom, anyways.

Since it seems to be annoying some people, and there's probably very little more useful input to be had anyways, I'll let it drop at this point.