composition query

[HASHASHIN]

ive been feeling the same way, its just a few people who are being asshats though...if it were over at my forums they would get warnings, then be banned if they continued their asshattery

constructive criticism is the key to learning..not belittling beginners

its like a barn photo...boring :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao: ... please...someone tell me how that statement is constructive , or helping anyone here

 

[Alpha]

Yep, two threads. In one you have edited the photos out. That's all I could find in one year's history.




Nobody is allowed to do that. It's nothing against you in specific (AFAIK). It is a general rule of the forum to use the General Gallery to show the work you are already happy with. I am quite sure you are welcome to post your real work there.

The vast majority of posts in the general gallery get glossed over anyway. Which is why Corinna moved her own photo (the statue) from the gallery to the critique section in spite of the fact that she had no specific questions.

I still think you're all ridiculous to insist that nobody has the right to critique your work if they haven't posted their own. It's not some kind of quid pro quo. If you don't think that people who don't post should be allowed to critique, then go cry to your local mod. And if you don't think that anything I say is worth listening to, then don't be so upset.

Regarding the photo in this thread, I think it's completely mediocre. There just isn't any interesting subject matter. There are no genuine "suggestions" I can give except that you forget about this photo and move on. I'm not going to apologize for saying that, and if it makes me an "ass hat" then so be it.

 

[HASHASHIN]

there is nothing wrong with not posting pictures and giving critique....

critique i believe is very welcome...so long as it is constructive and helping...

and as much as i hate to say it..you seem to really have a good eye for photography
its just the way you come across is normally very rude and ass hatish or useless..
telling someone their picture is boring isnt helping anyone, telling someone how they could improve on the other hand can help greatly

 

[The_Traveler]

Critique is easy and photography is hard.

Giving critique, especially negative, is not taking any chance about revealing your abilities or your mistakes. After all if people disagree, the 'critic' can pass himself as more discerning. The anonymous nature of the Internet allows this kind of critic to pass off rudeness and bullying as honesty.

Getting criticism can be painful and so the way that I see it there is a sort of social compact where we all let ourselves be vulnerable to critique by posting pictures. When someone wants to be in the easy part without having to work on the hard part, it is offensive. This can be ameliorated by actually being pleasant and constructive.

When someone knows the social contract - and chooses not to buy in but persists in being a putz, I assume that he is, as Westerners say, 'all hat and no cattle.'

 

[(Ghastly) Krueger]

Since you only quoted me, I'll assume the whole answer is directed only to me...

The vast majority of posts in the general gallery get glossed over anyway.

You may have a point here. There seems to be a gap in between the general gallery and the critique forum. A place to have, like you said, finished pictures you are happy with... but want a deep analysis and critique. It may be a topic for forum feedback, if you care to raise it.

What I'd do in that situation is post in General and PM a couple of members to ask for their feedback, usually works well.

Which is why Corinna moved her own photo (the statue) from the gallery to the critique section in spite of the fact that she had no specific questions.

To be "brutally honest", it's very childish of you to point at someone else.

I still think you're all ridiculous to insist that nobody has the right to critique your work if they haven't posted their own.

I didn't say that you don't have the right to do it. I only supported the facts already stated and said that it was an interesting point and a valid example.
It just sounds overly pedantic when you give your "honest" comments... regardless of your photographs or lack thereoff.

Regarding the photo in this thread, I think it's completely mediocre.

Again being "brutally honest", I thought by now you'd have realized this is well beyond the point.

if it makes me an "ass hat" then so be it.

Vox populi...

 

[Alpha]

Hashashin, I agree with you to a great extent, actually. But giving critique on composition in general is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do with any photo. In most cases, suggestions like "try shooting it from across the street" or "maybe try a different angle" or "try it from above" don't really say anything. Visually speaking, the viewer gets simply what's given to them. I don't have any clue what that street corner would look like from some other place, or from above or below or at night or whatever, and I would defy anyone else to really have a clue, either. So in that respect I do think that a lot of composition suggests are pretty nonsensical. There are some photos where you can legitimately get an idea of what a particular subject might look like from a different perspective, but I don't think that this (or a number of photos in the critique section) is one them. What makes composition such a difficult thing to critique is that it's highly egoic; that is to say that only the photographer, having actually viewed the subject itself, can really have a good idea of what a shot from any other perspective might offer. So at the point where you have a photo that's either composed in an uninteresting way or is of an uninteresting subject (as I think is the case here), and you can't make any real determination about what other perspectives might produce, then I think you're in a bit of a jam. Sure you could say, "go back and take another look at it and see if there's any other way to shoot it that might produce a more interesting photo," but I think that's sort of a given anyway. My point, really, is that in cases like this, I honestly believe that the best thing to do, as I've stated in a couple other posts, is to just make peace with the fact that's it's an uninteresting shot, and either go back and take another look or forget about it.

The Traveler: I understand what you're saying about it being easy to give negative critique, but I do think that you're being overly sensitive and rather hypocritical at this point. I do not agree with what Harrisoncj posted-- it was totally uncalled for. But I really don't think it's fair that you should post something for critique and then get angry when you don't get the critique that you want to hear. If you'd like, we can just agree to disagree and I won't ever critique your photos again.

 

[The_Traveler]

The Traveler: I understand what you're saying about it being easy to give negative critique, but I do think that you're being overly sensitive and rather hypocritical at this point. I do not agree with what Harrisoncj posted-- it was totally uncalled for. But I really don't think it's fair that you should post something for critique and then get angry when you don't get the critique that you want to hear. If you'd like, we can just agree to disagree and I won't ever critique your photos again.

You are wrongly understanding my response. I wasn't angry at all at the negative criticism from Harrisoncj - but it wasn't critique and I resist hypocrisy in my self and don't like it in others.

But I will take you up on your offer.

 

[RMThompson]

I have to agree on two things:

1. The composition isn't that great, but only because it's really busy. Cut a bit from the top and bottom and you may have something, but I doubt it.

2. It's frustrating posting pics here looking for in depth critique and getting "We moved you to general because your question wasnt specific enough" or "Good shot"....

There should be an inbetween full critique board, where you can only post one picture at a time and in order to get one critiqued you have to at least critique one others. (It would be nice to have a 1 to 1 ratio, done token style. For each crit you give, your given a token, and each token can be used to post one photo for critique... but its probably above the capabilities of this forum)

The_Traveler, QTIP! Quit Taking it Personally! I love your (other) work!

 

[a5i736]

wow..what a great critique, its nice to have children visiting the forums.

i find some of the members here to be complete ass hats.:er:

I think what he (harrisoncj) was trying to say is, the picture seems very unmotivated, with no reason to take it. You are the one being childish calling people ass hats when there was no reason to. He was simply asking a question and by forcing the photographer to answer this basic question. Why? can improve the photographers eye for other things like this in the future. Psh who uses the term "ass hats" anyways, the last time I heard that I was on the 6th grade playground. So in conclusion you my friend are the ass hat.

 

[HASHASHIN]

i use the word ass hat when i find someone to be utterly useless

and i didnt gather that from his response...all i got was a snide useless remark, as did a few others...sorry if it was a misunderstanding

and i guess i could have called people useless, instead of ass hats, but i find the expression rather comical, and maybe a little more light hearted

 

[LaFoto]

Which is why Corinna moved her own photo (the statue) from the gallery to the critique section in spite of the fact that she had no specific questions.

Please let me reply to this statement in_the_thread_in_question .

Another thing that has been going through my mind ever since this photo and Lew's question about composition and whether it is too complicated or not has first been shown here in The Critique Forum is - mostly so since I know Lew's other photos and like most of them - whether he had ulterior motives in putting this up here for critique. Just like MaxBloom thought I did when I posted the pic in the thread to where the link above will guide you.

This is not your usual style.
It is vastly different from anything you have shown us so far.

Provocative and little helpful as harrisoncj's question might seem at first sight, I still think the question is valid and is one that each and everyone of us who point our camera at something, frame it and detach it from its context with the help of our photo should always ask themselves: why this, why now, why like this?

I feel that the question of the Why of a photo is important even.

Of course we can throw ourselves on the floor with our camera in hand and snap and see what will come out of it in the end. The result will be totally unplanned, absolutely random pictures ... though, come to it, even that can be the very motivation behind it.

Any motivation that makes us take a photo should be explainable, and even if the photographer might not have delved deeply into the Why for taking a particular photo at the time of taking it (sometimes we are just driven by an undefined emotion), the very Why should open itself up to him later, mostly so when he goes out to show that particular photo to someone else, and more so even when he asks for specific critique for his piece of work.

The explanation need not fill a whole book, not even an essay, need not be based in a deep philosophy of things. It can be as simple as "I liked the light" or "I liked the colours" or "I did not want to miss that moment" or "I wanted to keep this for memory" or "I wanted to be able to show what I saw to those who were not with me at the time" etc.

But the question about the Why is as permissible as the answer to this question should be possible, I think.

Now over to the thread on the statue to reply to MaxBloom's saying I did not have anything to ask about it (and I go there for that question as not to derail this thread too much).

 

[The_Traveler]

- But the question about the Why is as permissible as the answer to this question should be possible, I think.

Absolutely. What I reacted to was not the question but the manner of asking it and motives of the questioners. I feel very strongly about the social roles of a community, as said before.

-
This is not your usual style.
It is vastly different from anything you have shown us so far.

Any motivation that makes us take a photo should be explainable, ......... But the question about the Why is as permissible as the answer to this question should be possible, I think.

I really liked this picture from the moment I saw it and before I took it- and even waited through a cycle of traffic lights while my spouse loitered across the street - and my motive was to see if this was a completely personal thing or if the discordant nature of the photo appealed to anyone else.

My usual 'style' is a tendency towards simple direct pictures that often involve large blocks of strong color and, imo, a tight composition.

I tend not to try to explain pictures so that I don't influence the viewer. I don't want them to like/dislike a picture because of my intent, their understand of the 'purpose' or their attachment to the emotion. (eg "I love this picture of babies because I love any picture of babies/dogs/food, etc.")

In this case, I saw a lot of strong, but seemingly discordant elements that somehow seemed to relate to each other - not all at once but in pairs, light to light, face to picture, lines to lines - with color, content, shape. It was the lack of a single composition within this space that really drew me- and of course the vivdness of the individual elements. It was an intellectual puzzle to look at.

in re the 'rule of thirds', there is no 'rule.' Most of the time, the thirds are convenient, strong places to put picture elements - but sometimes flauting the 'rule' can be important.

 

[RMThompson]

La Foto, I answered you in your thread...

The_Traveler, I took what you said and tried something new with it:

 

[Torus34]

Traveler;

First, I don't post pictures. Not on TPF or any other site. I don't email pictures to friends or relatives, either. This is just a side effect of how I approach photography. I make prints to hang in my home. Period.

That out of the way, the print which you've posted has two main strong points of interest ['Walk' sign and picture on lamppost] rather than one. While the lamppost is nicely parallel to the right side of the frame, the upper line of the door lintel is not parallel to the top of the frame.

Both of these features tend to reduce the impact of the print.

 

[The_Traveler]

Traveler;

First, I don't post pictures. Not on TPF or any other site. I don't email pictures to friends or relatives, either. This is just a side effect of how I approach photography. I make prints to hang in my home. Period.

That out of the way, the print which you've posted has two main strong points of interest ['Walk' sign and picture on lamppost] rather than one. While the lamppost is nicely parallel to the right side of the frame, the upper line of the door lintel is not parallel to the top of the frame.

Both of these features tend to reduce the impact of the print.

pleasant and constructive.
thanks,

Lew