Oh man, it's the lake

[rob91]

Just tell me what you think. Thanks.

 

[rob91]

Why were both of my picture threads moved?

 

[The Phototron]

Why were both of my picture threads moved?

Because of the obvious difference between critique and comment. Of course and the suspicion of the moderator that this is not your final result, that it could either use more processing or a reshoot.

 

[rob91]

Because of the obvious difference between critique and comment. Of course and the suspicion of the moderator that this is not your final result, that it could either use more processing or a reshoot.

I offered both pictures up for comments and critiques, I thought that was clear by posting them under the critiques section. And yes, both are very much final products. Outside of some light cropping I almost never "touch up" my photos nor am I ever in a position for reshoots as nothing is staged.

 

[The Phototron]

I don't necessarily agree with the decision, it is a bit unfair for them filter out what they think is mediocre and unfinished work. But most of the time they seem to be making the right decision, because your photos will be insulted anyway if it's not interesting or doesn't have composition value.

My take on this shot is this, the composition going on is very primitive. You framed the edges without thinking about interaction between the elements in the picture. And the vantage point was chosen because it's more different than the rest, not because it helps your visualization.

To prove this, give me a quick response why you overexposed, place the two people on the bottom left, use a wide visual field, what lighting is it, why didn't you get rid of specular lighting on the waves.

If it takes you a while to answer, that's because it's primarily a snapshot, not a well composed picture that belongs to the critique forum.

 

[rob91]

I don't necessarily agree with the decision, it is a bit unfair for them filter out what they think is mediocre and unfinished work. But most of the time they seem to be making the right decision, because your photos will be insulted anyway if it's not interesting or doesn't have composition value.

My take on this shot is this, the composition going on is very primitive. You framed the edges without thinking about interaction between the elements in the picture. And the vantage point was chosen because it's more different than the rest, not because it helps your visualization.

To prove this, give me a quick response why you overexposed, place the two people on the bottom left, use a wide visual field, what lighting is it, why didn't you get rid of specular lighting on the waves.

If it takes you a while to answer, that's because it's primarily a snapshot, not a well composed picture that belongs to the critique forum.

Sorry, I don't see a problem with the framing here. If you want to expound on that point I'd love to hear it. My vantage point is different from the rest? What rest? I think it was a great spot to take a picture from.

I don't do much with the lighting when I shoot, in part because I am still a novice. Yes I admit there are some bright spots, but that is the picture.

Why did I place the people on the bottom left? Why not? How on earth does this bother you?

 

[The Phototron]

You should be more patient about taking offense, I didn't ask those questions to criticize, but to make you aware that you are not really composing the picture.

Snapshots are primarily driven by a primitive sense of what might be interesting follow by a click. Compositions are initiated by the same intuition, except with the addition of a keen awareness and attention to the interactions going on amongst different elements in a scene.

Anywho, I'm not giving you a put down, though it probably is to you. Because anything other than flattery or sugar-coated suggestion is an insult to your effort.

 

[rob91]

I'm not on the defensive, I'm merely asking you to clarify your vague comments. Anyone can bring up "poor framing" yet unless you connect it to anything it is a useless criticism.

 

[The Phototron]

I'm not on the defensive, I'm merely asking you to clarify your vague comments. Anyone can bring up "poor framing" yet unless you connect it to anything it is a useless criticism.

It wasn't a comment...it was a question. Let me rephrase it more clearly, is there a particular reason for you to frame it that way, is there a particular reason why you overexposed the picture? The point of my questions is that you are taking a snapshot by not paying attention to these details.

Take a moment and try to understand what I'm actually saying.

It's hard to critique a snapshot just as it's hard to critique a page of gibberish. There's no point in saying, everything is wrong. There is not a clear theme to your picture, what were you trying to do with it? If that's not evident how do people give critiques that's relevant to what you're trying to do and actually be constructive?

Edit: I'm just going to stop responding now, what I'm saying is probably right, but it's not helping you.

 

[rob91]

On the lighting, like I've said I'm a novice and wasn't really aware of the effect it was having. If I had the chance again I might tone it down a bit.

On the framing, if there is a point to the framing I'm not going to tell you. It will either get you or it won't; it gets me, and yes, I framed with intent. Ok, why not, I will talk about it a little...can't hurt. To me there is something special about the shift from the beach to the water, I love the way one falls into the other. Then you have two people sitting in the corner, watching on or not watching at all.

I don't know how hard it is to critique a picture like this, I was just posting to hear some reactions, and yes, critiques if anyone had them. And when you say my picture lacks a clear theme, I actually take that as a compliment, so thanks. And thanks for taking the time to discuss this.

 

[a5i736]

On the lighting, like I've said I'm a novice and wasn't really aware of the effect it was having. If I had the chance again I might tone it down a bit.

On the framing, if there is a point to the framing I'm not going to tell you. It will either get you or it won't; it gets me, and yes, I framed with intent. Ok, why not, I will talk about it a little...can't hurt. To me there is something special about the shift from the beach to the water, I love the way one falls into the other. Then you have two people sitting in the corner, watching on or not watching at all.

I don't know how hard it is to critique a picture like this, I was just posting to hear some reactions, and yes, critiques if anyone had them. And when you say my picture lacks a clear theme, I actually take that as a compliment, so thanks. And thanks for taking the time to discuss this.

Why do you ***** when you don't get the response you want. The fact is your picture was not good, in technical terms and in most all other terms, this is simply the reason I could not give you a serious critique to your "Bigfoot" shot because it was a crappy snapshot. This is not a finished piece. . . . and If you don't believe in doing any post processing you need to re think, because all professional photogs use post processing and it hasnt steered them wrong, your no Ansel Adams, and probably not the next.

P.S and once again I love your title "Oh man, It's the lake" I wonder when your gonna take "I can't believe it's not butter"

 

[Harmony]

It's alright if you decide you don't like post processing, however, unless you are the next Ansel Adams, your photos will turn out crappier than the rest because most photographers use post processing.

The Phototron had good advice. This photo is a snapshot, not a composition. The bottom area is blown out, totally overexposed. The vantage point is interesting, but why did you choose to take it from that position? Yes, it looks cool in real life, and granted, the depth of the water is interesting in this photo, but there is no way that I would hang this on my wall or keep it. If I had taken it, this photo wouldn't have made it past stage 1, or the 'what on earth was I thinking when I thought this was a good photo?, delete' stage.

And don't feel down because you didn't receive any positive feedback about this photo. Keep taking pictures, but try thinking about all the things mentioned in this thread about composition, lighting, and etc.

Oh. And also about the critique forum, scroll down and look at previous photos submitted. Then you should understand why it was moved.

-M

 

[rob91]

It's alright if you decide you don't like post processing, however, unless you are the next Ansel Adams, your photos will turn out crappier than the rest because most photographers use post processing.

The Phototron had good advice. This photo is a snapshot, not a composition. The bottom area is blown out, totally overexposed. The vantage point is interesting, but why did you choose to take it from that position? Yes, it looks cool in real life, and granted, the depth of the water is interesting in this photo, but there is no way that I would hang this on my wall or keep it. If I had taken it, this photo wouldn't have made it past stage 1, or the 'what on earth was I thinking when I thought this was a good photo?, delete' stage.

And don't feel down because you didn't receive any positive feedback about this photo. Keep taking pictures, but try thinking about all the things mentioned in this thread about composition, lighting, and etc.

Oh. And also about the critique forum, scroll down and look at previous photos submitted. Then you should understand why it was moved.

-M

The more I read, the more I realize my work is closer to snapshot work. However, not all of it, as I often take time to set up my shots (as was the case here). Anyways, just a question, what makes you think snapshots lack a sense of composition? Thanks.

 

[Harmony]

The definition of 'snapshots' are shots that were snapped. 'Snapped' usually pertains to something done fast or without thought, eg: snapped at your parents. I don't think that all snapshots are compositionally unsound, but many are taken on the spur of the moment, and no thought was put into them other than 'that's interesting... click.'

And then there are some people who could spend HOURS setting up the shot and fail dismally because they a) don't know what composition is b) don't care or c) couldn't take a good photo to save their life.

So in answer to your question, snapshots can be great photos, but in most cases, shots are carefully planned and executed. (And post-processed after.)

-M

 

[rob91]

I mostly disagree with that, I've seen too much great photography that would probably fall under the definition of a snapshot. I'm going to assume (though I doubt it's a stretch) that by differentiating between a snapshot and composition you're trying to promote the idea of formalism, or possibly objective photography, which I don't entirely buy into.