Two for C&C

[Fred Berg]

View attachment 24994 View attachment 24995

 

[Frequency]

FB...

hmmmm.... neither do not work for me.....probably your intention is not well conveyed, i am afraid; sorry :blushing:

 

[pixmedic5 5]

focus issues on both.
#1 the post is in focus, the horse is not. the horse in the back looks more in focus. missed focus on that one.
#2 nothing is in focus. its all motion blur.

 

[Fred Berg]

FB...

hmmmm.... neither do not work for me.....probably your intention is not well conveyed, i am afraid; sorry :blushing:

Perhaps it would help if I explain that this needs to be viewed as an holistic piece. The title, the two images and their subtitles are one work, not separate pieces entered for C&C.

 

[pixmedic5 5]

FB...

hmmmm.... neither do not work for me.....probably your intention is not well conveyed, i am afraid; sorry :blushing:

Perhaps it would help if I explain that this needs to be viewed as an holistic piece. The title, the two images and their subtitles are one work, not separate pieces entered for C&C.

you might have to explain this one to me. title said TWO for C&C. also, i don't see how the two picture or the subtitles fit together.
even if there is some connection I am missing, the biggest issue is the focus problems, not compositional ones.

 

[ChrisedwardsHT]

I'll have to agree. Both not in focus.. Nothing pleasing to me.

 

[Fred Berg]

focus issues on both.
#1 the post is in focus, the horse is not. the horse in the back looks more in focus. missed focus on that one.
#2 nothing is in focus. its all motion blur.

Yes, in #1 the horse shied away at the critical moment (only the head is fuzzy you'll notice). Without this lucky chance the idea just wouldn't be there. we all need luck!

#2 the intention was to get the swing motion in blur, but I also had to avoid a kick in the face so it all came out slightly blurry

 

[Fred Berg]

I'll have to agree. Both not in focus.. Nothing pleasing to me.

Lol, I think the point of the piece is being missed/overlooked. As mentioned above in my reply to Nandakumar, this is an holistic piece.

 

[pixmedic5 5]

I'll have to agree. Both not in focus.. Nothing pleasing to me.

Lol, I think the point of the piece is being missed/overlooked. As mentioned above in my reply to Nandakumar, this is an holistic piece.

that's why I asked for an explanation. I do not understand what is meant by a "holistic piece". I will have to google it and see what turns up.
as far as motion blur, the horse shot could be fixed with faster shutter speed. possibly the kid in the swing as well.
background blur is fine, but the main focal point of the picture should be in focus.

 

[Fred Berg]

I'll have to agree. Both not in focus.. Nothing pleasing to me.

Lol, I think the point of the piece is being missed/overlooked. As mentioned above in my reply to Nandakumar, this is an holistic piece.

that's why I asked for an explanation. I do not understand what is meant by a "holistic piece". I will have to google it and see what turns up.
as far as motion blur, the horse shot could be fixed with faster shutter speed. possibly the kid in the swing as well.
background blur is fine, but the main focal point of the picture should be in focus.

It just means the whole has to be considered and not a breakdown of the parts. If the photos selected for the piece had no faults, then it wouldn't work. Since the title seems to be calling for critique, there should be something there to pick out: even though this isn't the point!

I will openly admit that I didn't set out to take these photos this way with this piece in mind (I'm no pro or artist), but upon reviewing them I found their imperfections to be quite serendipitous, and it was after giving them a faux Polaroid look that the idea came to me.


Edit: The subtitles are meant to represent the sort of language used when asking for frank and open critique, but it also connects with the images.

 

[Tuffythepug]

Pardon the bluntness but it just seems like you've combined two photos which are bad on their own into one photo which is worse and makes no sense.

"Holistic", "Serendipitous", "faux poloroid"... are just terms you are using to try and justify the end result. Unfortunately, although you can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.
This image fails any test for being a good photo I'm afraid; not matter what label you put on it

 

[Fred Berg]

Pardon the bluntness but it just seems like you've combined two photos which are bad on their own into one photo which is worse and makes no sense.

"Holistic", "Serendipitous", "faux poloroid"... are just terms you are using to try and justify the end result. Unfortunately, although you can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.
This image fails any test for being a good photo I'm afraid; not matter what label you put on it

Putting the boot in like this suggests that at a subconscious level you have begun to understand the piece, even if you don't really get it

 

[Tuffythepug]

Pardon the bluntness but it just seems like you've combined two photos which are bad on their own into one photo which is worse and makes no sense.

"Holistic", "Serendipitous", "faux poloroid"... are just terms you are using to try and justify the end result. Unfortunately, although you can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.
This image fails any test for being a good photo I'm afraid; not matter what label you put on it

Putting the boot in like this suggests that at a subconscious level you have begun to understand the piece, even if you don't really get it

Yeah, that must be it. This piece is so deep it can only be understood on a subconscious level. Wow. pure genius. I get it now.

 

[Rick58]

Sorry Fred...It ain't workin'

 

[Tuffythepug]

Sorry Fred...It ain't workin'

Rick, not even on a subconscious level ?