MaxBloom - what all is bad about this photo?

[PNA]

Max.....A very interesting point of view and valid. One I've not considered before in terms of time being the element of uniqueness. But then, isn't that what most photographers are seeking without realizing it......???? Hmmmmm, verllly intelllesting.....

 

[gmarquez]

time being the element of uniqueness

I'd like to expand that a bit, and add that there are at least 7 dimensions that you have to be aware of to get those "magical, fleeting" shots.

1 dimension - Time
3 dimensions - your camera's position (are you standing, kneeling. upside down)
3 dimensions - where your camera is pointed at

There may be even more "degrees of freedom" (aperture, zoom, etc.).

In other words, it's not only being somewhere at the right moment in time, it's being at any number of great spots, viewing a great scene from a great angle, and snapping images at the right time...all of them combined help make a great shot.

I spend a LOT of time positioning myself where I think that the 3+3 spatial dimensions will align with the time dimension to make a great shot. For example, I'll move myself to where the wet sand is reflecting the sunset colors, then compose the scene for best composition, and then wait for a seagull (that I know is flying into the scene) to arrive...or the sun to set a little lower...or the texture of the water to smooth out...or the perfect wave (just a swell right now, but I know it's going to break well) to come in.

I'm rambling, so I'll stop now. :crazy:

 

[PNA]

and then wait for a seagull (that I know is flying into the scene) to arrive...or the sun to set a little lower...or the texture of the water to smooth out...or the perfect wave (just a swell right now, but I know it's going to break well) to come in.

In one word.....time!

Points well taken.....

 

[LaFoto]

Max, thanks for your thoughts on this photo and on the key element of TIME as the one that helps you take "the unique photo" ... in our times I am beginning to have my doubts about the possibility left to the amateur like myself to get "the unique photo" at all, when things are being captured on chip a million or even a billion times by just about anybody today.

But ... we could still strive to get something MORE outstanding than what others produce. And I begin to see that a zoom-in into this monument can actually be done by just anybody who takes an interest in it. And I did not put any effort into making this in any way "special" (considering that "unique" is impossible per sé).

Yes. Point well taken, and thank you for elaborating on it.

Now I feel that in your philosophy it will be generally impossible to take any really good photo on cemeteries at all? Since they are inherently made "for eternity", anyway, and anything we find there was there years ago, was there yesterday, is there today and will be there tomorrow, so just about ANY TIME anyone can go there and take the very same photo?

But there are many around here (just to take our little community here as my example) who like to go and take photos on graveyards/cemeteries. In your philosophy ... do they all (naturally) take "boring" photos? Since those monuments will always be there and can always be photographed?

But Ansel's mountain ranges also were there for eternities.
Is it the light, the bird, the animal, the shadows, the ... whatever there only happened to be there in that fraction of a second that he captured ALONG with the eternal mountain ranges that fascinates you so?

Going back to THIS monument ... you say I will NEVER be able to create anything "unique" (or even interesting) out it. You don't see any chance then ... not even if I go back and stay until the late hours of the day, sit there and wait for the sun to shine just right, and the shadows to fall just right, not even if I went for a quite different than my (admittedly boring) head-on angle on this ... I will NEVER be able to make this any interesting?

(My questions are genuine. You must believe me. I am really curious to hear more about it).

 

[The_Traveler]

This thought that everything is being done reminds me that about 1800, the US Patent office considered closing because 'everything had been invented.' If photography were only a reproductive effort, then it might be true that everything might have been done, but photography is so much more.

For my sake I attempt to see or find pieces of beauty or interest in the world round me and isolate them sufficiently in an image to demonstrate them to others. If I cannot find something unique or interesting in any place, it is because I am too high or too low or not looking closely or widely enough or at the right times. The inability to find something to shoot is not the failure of the environment but of my own vision and doggedness.

And so I find that the more possible it is that I could take a particular photo twice, the less unique it is, and the less special it becomes.

THe difference between someone of photographic vision like Cole Weston and the rest of us more common clay is that he could take the same subject, the same material repeated times and make it into new interesting pictures. The onus is not on the material that we see through the lens to be newly special or interesting, but upon us to make it so.

 

[RMThompson]

This thought that everything is being done reminds me that about 1800, the US Patent office considered closing because 'everything had been invented.' If photography were only a reproductive effort, then it might be true that everything might have been done, but photography is so much more.

For my sake I attempt to see or find pieces of beauty or interest in the world round me and isolate them sufficiently in an image to demonstrate them to others. If I cannot find something unique or interesting in any place, it is because I am too high or too low or not looking closely or widely enough or at the right times. The inability to find something to shoot is not the failure of the environment but of my own vision and doggedness.

THe difference between someone of photographic vision like Cole Weston and the rest of us more common clay is that he could take the same subject, the same material repeated times and make it into new interesting pictures. The onus is not on the material that we see through the lens to be newly special or interesting, but upon us to make it so.

I was going to write something similar, but you put it much better than I could.

I take portraits for instance. That beauty is not fleeting usually, and it can return, but it CAN make for a good photo. Also, not every interesting picture is beautiful... some are quite ugly.

 

[Alpha]

@ TheTraveler: To begin, I resent your implication that I'm not someone "of photographic vision." I think that you're a) being a contrarian, and b) misunderstanding me. Taking photographs in order to present things in a way that they wouldn't ordinarily be seen is something that I consider to be very important. However, that in and of itself does not mean that a failure to take a meaningful photo of some particular subject is a failure on the photographer's part. This point you've made about Cole Weston I believe is incorrect. On one hand, I think that you're ascribing your own philosophy to his work. I would defy even him to be able to able to control photographs in the way that you imply. For they depend upon the direction of the wind, the way sun is split between tree branches, the color of earth, and so on. And in spite of what he may see or do with his camera, whatever he photographs, by necessity, must have presented itself in some way to him.
But I do not wish to argue with you, and I think that you should have paid more attention to what I was saying. If you believe that the photo Corinna took is not good because of her own failings as a photographer, or her lack of "photographic vision" as you call it, then all I have to say is that I think you're patently wrong. The reason is two-fold. 1) Your philosophy is ego-centric. 2) It fails to explain why this type of subject matter is inherently uninteresting.

@RMThompson: Portrait photography is an entirely different realm. Though, as you might have expected me to say, I see portrait work in terms of my general philosophy as well.

I'll make my crucial point here. Because photography is Time, the more organic a subject is (that is to say, changing), the more potentially unique a photo can be taken.


Back to RMThompson: I argue that because people are so organic, that even the control of all other environmental factors makes them supremely interesting to shoot. You could literally never take the same photograph twice. My goal when shooting portraits is to capture someone at the moment that they are connecting with the camera, and when they are at most themselves.

So Corinna: The point that you made about Ansel Adams I think is key. In my opinion, Yosemite National Park (and I have been there) is a much more organic place than a monument at the cemetery. Of course, it is subject to the same light and weather conditions, but look at that playground! In Yosemite, your subject can be a 1000 meter rock face dotted with trees and streams, and a nearly infinite combination of light and shadow effects. But take that and shrink it down to 5 meters. Your playground is a bit more limited. To answer your other question though, about how other people manage good photos in cemeteries, I think goes back to my point about organic subjects. The most striking cemetery photos that I have seen posted on this board are of inanimate things being animated, or being made to look animated. One photo really sticks out in my mind, and I can't remember who took it. But there were two headstones, a husband and wife, and the headstones had leaned in towards each other and were touching. Now that's an interesting photo in a cemetery.

 

[LaFoto]

Thank you!

I will go back to Ohlsdorf. And I will try to find this very monument again, though. And I will try to make this look some more interesting. I think it can be a challenge. A self-imposed assignment.

It may help you understand why this momument as the image it represents (boy being taken away by the Angel of Death with father - back on earth - pleading ... which is my interpretation of things) meant enough to me to want to take this photo is that my first-born son was taken away from me when he was only 10, too. So somehow I may very well feel more upon seeing this carving in stone than others do. But I did not want to say so right at the beginning.

I still see that my MANNER of capturing this part of the triptych is photographically and maybe even inherently uninteresting, though. Thank you for explaining it to me.

 

[PNA]

Corinna….your loss is tragic and although I cannot feel you pain, I can understand your association to the monument. I'm sure you’ll capture the shot that will be the most meaningful to you.

Only to re-enforce Max’s point. When you see or do something that is unique to you, it’s very possible and probable that someone else has seen or done that same thing before you.

The interesting part comes into play when; if you wait long enough to capture a moment on “film” your capture may be recognized as unique, unique enough to be exhibited for critics to review. So in my humble opinion as stated above, timing is everything….the bird, the wave, the shadows and so on. You are the creator with regard to photography, so…. go create and be patient.

P

 

[LaFoto]

.,..and be patient.

Key word!
You are so right.

I'll be patient! I'll wait for some more, the better light, a special sunset glow, shadows, something else ... but now I know why in the other forums this photo got no replies. To know that helps A LOT, too! Flat as my more representation of what I saw at the time is, it could not provoke any reaction in anyone else. That is ok.

 

[gmarquez]

Might I also suggest trying to take a photo of the monument from a unique angle? Maybe position yourself closer, get on one knee, and shoot pointing slightly up? Or from a bit to the side? (Let the lighting conditions tell you what is best). Sometimes (most times?) straight-on shots lack drama.

 

[Alex_B]

I would categorize this image as "well spotted and then captured .. but nothing created". What you show in the image is interesting (to some it is at least, to others not), however the way you captured it is rather neutral, which is ok, it is one approach in photography, but not the most exciting one

actually, many of my images are just like that ... unfortunately

 

[LaFoto]

In_this_thread you claim I did not have any specific question about the above shown photo.

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 feel you maintain the wrong thing.
The very title of this whole thread is my question.
The photo was first shown in the General Gallery and was far from being "glossed over" by anyone there. It had ever so many views but did not get any comment at all. No "glossing-over" one nor any other. It was a total non-starter and I began to seriously wonder, why this is so, and that maybe the meaning this photo might have (had) for me simply does not transpire AT ALL. And that is the very thing I wanted to know!

Check me out, Max, find out how many photos I put up in The Critique Forum. You will find that this was about one out of all in all three in all the three+ years that I have been a member of this forum.

When I make the decision to show a photo in The Critique Forum, then this decision is well motivated and is not one to "just use that platform as another to show my work".

I asked WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PHOTO?
And that question was genuine.
I may not have elaborated too much at first, since I did not want to influence any possible replies. But the statement-cum-question was that something must be wrong here and please help me find out what it is.

And you did. MaxBloom did and others did, too.
I have learned a lot through this thread and I am grateful for it.
Many things have been addressed, such as that what you need to plan a good photo is time, patience, that special little extra that makes the photo unique and "unrepeatable" ... and I now know that this particular photo does not have it. The angle is very straightforward, the light is bland and unexciting, and the scene as such (parent losing a child through death) only touches me for my very own reasons, but this PHOTO as such does not really communicate this to anyone else. I learned all that and that is why I am happy I asked the question in here in the first place.

But a question WAS asked!
And a serious one.
I don't want to be presented as "one of the mods who can move threads and so she moved her own, just so"! Probably just because you, MaxBloom, were mad with Terri for her moving your photo to the General Gallery... it is just not fair to maintain my reason to move my photo (actually I reposted it) was none.

 

[RMThompson]

La Foto I have to generally disagree with you. I've posted pictures, and seen others with similar generic sounding questions:

"What can I do to improve this"

"Does this photo work"

"What's wrong with this picture"

I usually don't complain because, hey I'm no mod, I'm not even a paid subscriber, so I don't really have the right to complain, but It seems to be a double standard.

 

[Alpha]

Corinna, I understand what you're saying, and I apologize for "calling you out" as it were, but I still have to disagree.

I am ****ed that Terri moved my post. And I think that if I had posted your post, then Terri would have moved it, end of story. The question that I posed in mine last weekend was essentially "Can you find anything wrong with this photo?" which, for all effective purposes is exactly the same as "What all is bad about this photo?"

Make no mistake, I'm not trying to point my finger at you to show some sort of abuse of power. In fact, I'm glad that you moved your post, because it allows me to make this point.

The critique/gallery sections are screwed up. You moved your post to the critique section because you knew that people would actually respond to it there. In fact, even if my name had been in the title when it was in the general gallery, I probably still wouldn't have seen it because it would have been covered up by a thousand other posts from people looking to show off their work.

The most serious problem is that beginners often have no idea why their photos don't look good, so how are they to ask any specific but substantive questions?

I'm really not even all that interested anymore in what the mods have to say in defense of the current system, because I think you all know damn well that it's broken, and none of you seem to want to address the issue, except to point your fingers at a sticky and walk away. Regardless even of whether the general gallery should or should not be used for critique, the traffic (huge volume of posts) is problematic. So what do you do? You move post out of the critique section and into the gallery, where there are already too many posts to begin with.

My two cents, as should be clear by now, is that general, but serious critique, should be allowed in the critique section.