My first submission for a crit.

[vonnagy]

I think its cool pic, from her expression, i could tell she was up to something but i couldn't tell. I think you should have had her write that on the wall like you said... it is just a bit too subtle to notice.

I agree. Pshop it to get colors the way they should be. The back wall should be white, her hair should be brown. Everything is really yellow. I can try to pshop it if you want me too.

well, um yellow is a colour that often comes to mind when pondering a bathroom situation, so having the colouration like that seems obvious to me... :LOL: think it fits the theme.

Anyways, thats just my 2 cents... and thanks for posting something really different!

 

[DanielK]

Anyways, thats just my 2 cents... and thanks for posting something really different!

Thanks, man. I appreciate that.: )


Daniel

 

[Youngun]

My 2cents: Out of the four (original + 3 ps edits) I like the original, with BW coming in second. In my mind a photo doesn't copy reality, and nowhere does it say that white walls must look white in a photograph. To me the yellow adds a very dingy, unclean feeling, which I think goes with the tone well. As for the writing, it might help to have it more noticeable. But it took me less than 30 seconds to figure out what she was doing, and if you're critquing a photo for less than 30 seconds well then, shame on you. (sorry, that had to be more than two cents! )

 

[photong]

Yeah this grosses me out. no appeal to me. sorry.

IMO of course this is like taking pictures of road kill. its not something you can do without grossing/offending someone out.

i may be a bit sensitive as some patterns gross me out

 

[DanielK]

My 2cents: Out of the four (original + 3 ps edits) I like the original, with BW coming in second. In my mind a photo doesn't copy reality, and nowhere does it say that white walls must look white in a photograph. To me the yellow adds a very dingy, unclean feeling, which I think goes with the tone well. As for the writing, it might help to have it more noticeable. But it took me less than 30 seconds to figure out what she was doing, and if you're critquing a photo for less than 30 seconds well then, shame on you. (sorry, that had to be more than two cents! )

Thanks!. The problem with the white walls is that they weren't white in the first place. They were a brownish orange/yellow. In order to make them white, I'd have to photoshop them. And I think I'd lose the "dirty" feel of the picture. I also still like the original.

Thanks again.


Daniel

 

[markc]

My 2cents: Out of the four (original + 3 ps edits) I like the original, with BW coming in second. In my mind a photo doesn't copy reality, and nowhere does it say that white walls must look white in a photograph. To me the yellow adds a very dingy, unclean feeling, which I think goes with the tone well./quote]
I agree with you there. The yellow is perfectly fine for me. I didn't notice that she was writing until someone else pointed it out, though. The pose makes a lot more sense to me now. It would have been more obvious to me if her hand had been down closer to her face or her forearm wasn't flat against the wall.

The main disconnect I have is that I get a sense of the photographer being there, mainly from the doorframe. The distortion of the frame from the wide-angle lens and the position of the camara looking in makes me think of the person taking the picture. It looks very much like someone just walked in and saw this scene. This would work if she were looking up into the lens in a startled or guilty manner, but she's looking out as if she heard a noise and was making sure she didn't get caught. Either alone would work, but the two feelings together don't gel for me.

I'd like to either see the camera in this position and her looking at the camera, where we are identifying with the photographer; or with the camera more on her level with her looking out like she is now, where we are identifying more with her and are feeling a little guilty ourselves. As it is now, I feel more like a ghost observing but having no connection.

 

[DanielK]

Yeah this grosses me out. no appeal to me.

That's fine, but isn't that a valid reaction for any peice of art?

Should we, as artists, avoid certain subject matter or means of expression for fear of offending or grossing others out? If we, again, as artists, are scornful or intolerant of other artist's subject matter, then why should we ever expect the general public to be any less so?

And what did you see in the picture that grossed you out? Just a girl on the toilet?

Maybe a girl about to write on the wall in a public restroom who was fearful of getting caught?

Or did you see a metaphor of the societal debasement and compartmentalization of female sexuality? That in a figurative sense, it's a symbolic depiction of how some women feel they have to carefully hide (the bathroom stall) their full sexuallity and sexual desires (soliciting sex on a bathroom wall) from the public eye (the viewer looking down onto her from above) and are seen as dirty or slutty if they should let their inner desires be known. Is my work a photograph or is it an idea? An observation or a comment? That's up to the viewer, I suppose. We all bring our own selves along when we go to view artwork...and everything that involves.

Of course you have every right to your opinion of my work and I welcome your criticism and take absolutely no offense or umbrage to it. I think yours is a valid point and I'm glad you brought it up.


Daniel

 

[DanielK]

This would work if she were looking up into the lens in a startled or guilty manner, but she's looking out as if she heard a noise and was making sure she didn't get caught. Either alone would work, but the two feelings together don't gel for me.

I'd like to either see the camera in this position and her looking at the camera, where we are identifying with the photographer; or with the camera more on her level with her looking out like she is now, where we are identifying more with her and are feeling a little guilty ourselves. As it is now, I feel more like a ghost observing but having no connection.

Damn. That's a good point. I hadn't thought of it that way. I was thinking candid, but I think you're right. Maybe I'll try this shot again with that in mind.

Thanks, mark!


Daniel

 

[Youngun]

Yeah this grosses me out. no appeal to me.

That's fine, but isn't that a valid reaction for any peice of art?

Should we, as artists, avoid certain subject matter or means of expression for fear of offending or grossing others out? If we, again, as artists, are scornful or intolerant of other artist's subject matter, then why should we ever expect the general public to be any less so?

And what did you see in the picture that grossed you out? Just a girl on the toilet?

Maybe a girl about to write on the wall in a public restroom who was fearful of getting caught?

Or did you see a metaphor of the societal debasement and compartmentalization of female sexuality? That in a figurative sense, it's a symbolic depiction of how some women feel they have to carefully hide (the bathroom stall) their full sexuallity and sexual desires (soliciting sex on a bathroom wall) from the public eye (the viewer looking down onto her from above) and are seen as dirty or slutty if they should let their inner desires be known. Is my work a photograph or is it an idea? An observation or a comment? That's up to the viewer, I suppose. We all bring our own selves along when we go to view artwork...and everything that involves.

Of course you have every right to your opinion of my work and I welcome your criticism and take absolutely no offense or umbrage to it. I think yours is a valid point and I'm glad you brought it up.


Daniel

well put.............

 

[markc]

Damn. That's a good point. I hadn't thought of it that way. I was thinking candid, but I think you're right. Maybe I'll try this shot again with that in mind.

Thanks, mark!


Daniel

No prob. I'd like to see it if you do.

 

[ksmattfish]

But it took me less than 30 seconds to figure out what she was doing, and if you're critquing a photo for less than 30 seconds well then, shame on you. (sorry, that had to be more than two cents! )

I took longer than 30 seconds, and I still didn't catch that she was writing until I was told she was a bad girl getting caught at something, and then I searched for what she was doing bad. I originally thought that she was straining to look around the stall door, while trying to keep her *ss balanced on the toilet. I think Mark's idea of looking guilty into the camera would help define the action better.

On a similar idea, one of my mentors used to tell me that a photo has to grab the viewer and tell it's story (if it has one) in less than 30 seconds, because it's unlikely that most viewers will give it that much time if it doesn't. Just watch folks in a gallery or a museum; sure some of them take the time to really look at a photo or painting (I'm the one with my nose up against the glass examining the corner for 15 minutes), but many never even stop walking. They just rapidly move from one piece to the next, and so on, unless something really gets their attention. My mentor said that he didn't care if people liked his work or not; he was more concerned about how much time they were willing to spend looking at it.

 

[DanielK]

My mentor said that he didn't care if people liked his work or not; he was more concerned about how much time they were willing to spend looking at it.

If that's true, then we should all aspire to be porn photographers.


Daniel

 

[ksmattfish]

My mentor said that he didn't care if people liked his work or not; he was more concerned about how much time they were willing to spend looking at it.

If that's true, then we should all aspire to be porn photographers.
Daniel

The difference is that porn photographers are more concerned about how much money folks are willing to spend looking at it.

 

[DanielK]

My mentor said that he didn't care if people liked his work or not; he was more concerned about how much time they were willing to spend looking at it.

If that's true, then we should all aspire to be porn photographers.
Daniel

The difference is that porn photographers are more concerned about how much money folks are willing to spend looking at it.

Heh. I'm not seeing the downside to that.


Daniel

 

[terri]

Oh kewl, I found a quick reply box! Daniel, I definitely think this image would have been better if we'd "seen" more of what you were thinking here. I really appreciate the effort you put into this shot. I think you almost have to have the "writing on the wall" to slam the point home in that 30-seconds ksmattfish was talking about. More impact. I also like it MUCH better as a B&W; it has that raw drama only a B&W can give. But I'm a fool for B&W so that's maybe more personal preference. A close second was the desaturated one. And "should we, as artists, avoid certain subject matter..." ? Good god, no!