Young, irrational, and in Love.

[limr]

What matters to me is that it's a picture clearly intended to convey an emotion, so I ask myself, "Does it?" Yes.

IMO it does not.

And that's fine. Like I said, we will all view the photo differently, not only from each other, but often different from how the photographer views it as well. I'm just saying that for me, the title almost never enters into the equation.

 

[Gavjenks]

Okay fine, so it's "not a title." The point is that if you were to run with the irrationality thing in the image, it would be a photo I might remember for years. Whereas generic couple kissing on a bench, even if it were flawlessly captured, I will remember for maybe a day, two if you're lucky. Generic portraits make money (and if that's what you're doing then okay, but you didn't say), but they are usually swiftly forgotten by everyone except the people in the portraits. Because they look like every other generic portrait to those not in the picture.

Why did you post this photo?
1) Do you want critique on how to maybe make it a better photo? That's what I'm trying to give and you're being all defensive and disgusted sounding
2) Do you just want technical critique only? I/we could give that too.
3) Do you just want a poll on "good" or "bad" with not further explanation? Not sure how that helps you.

 

[kathyt]

I wouldn't mind the irrational brand of love rather than the tedium i deal with now.

It is a whole stack of fun balls runnah. This image is okay for me. Not one of my favorites from you Dan. I think it might be the composition.

 

[The_Traveler]

Holy crap!

This kind of dissection of a photographer's intent and a possible disconnect between title and picture seems, well, irrational nitpicking.
It's a good picture.
Perhaps I would have made it less saturated to give it a dreamy quality but the OP's style is saturated images.

It's a good picture, everyone, nothing else to see here. now go back to bed.

 

[rexbobcat]

Holy crap!

This kind of dissection of a photographer's intent and a possible disconnect between title and picture seems, well, irrational nitpicking.
It's a good picture.
Perhaps I would have made it less saturated to give it a dreamy quality but the OP's style is saturated images.

It's a good picture, everyone, nothing else to see here. now go back to bed.

I think some people might see the title as trying to make the photo more interesting than it actually is. I think it's a nice photo but generally I find most titles to be silly anyways, which is why I title most of my things as sardonically as possible.

 

[Gavjenks]

Lew: It's a pretty good photo technically speaking. So I don't think there's a lot of room to offer advice technically. And he offered a perfect example of something that he could run with instead to improve the photo dramatically in a non-technical way. I don't give a crap if it's a title or if it's presented with the image vs. if he just mentioned it in person while near the photo vs. if a mutual friend told me that's what he thinks about young love in general. That's not the point. The point is I now know something about his frame of mind, which allows me to make a suggestion for how to improve the storytelling of the image for future reference, and thus improve the photography.

So given the options of "Hey nice photo. Nothin much I would do technically. Have a nice day" vs. "You have shown competence in the mechanics, now here's one suggestion about the next step toward greatness: vision and storytelling" I think the latter is much more productive.

Does the forum want to be technical editing only? Dead end for any more improvement if you do a good job of that? Or do we want to push people to improve to be even better no matter what level they are at?

 

[robbins.photo]

Holy crap!

This kind of dissection of a photographer's intent and a possible disconnect between title and picture seems, well, irrational nitpicking.
It's a good picture.
Perhaps I would have made it less saturated to give it a dreamy quality but the OP's style is saturated images.

It's a good picture, everyone, nothing else to see here. now go back to bed.

Ok.. wait. So Dan posts a picture meant to convey the "irrationality" inherint in young love, which then inspires an "irrational" response of intense nitpicking. Since the best result a photographer can possibly acheive is to convey emotion, wouldn't that make this the best photograph ever taken in the entire history of photography pretty much on that basis alone?

Wow.. WTG Dan!!!!

 

[Gavjenks]

Zone of proximal development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^
It's how you teach stuff. The better you are at the basics, the more subtle and challenging and high level you need to be aiming for to not plateau.

 

[Designer]

Since the best result a photographer can possibly acheive is to convey emotion, wouldn't that make this the best photograph ever taken in the entire history of photography pretty much on that basis alone?

Assuming I'm willing to buy into that premise; I simply do not feel any emotion when I look at the photograph.

There is one very important component to the hypothesis that you have neglected: The viewer.

Here's my analysis:

1. Since the best result a photographer can possibly acheive is to convey emotion to the viewer, and
2. The viewer feels no emotion when viewing the photograph,
3. Therefore; the photograph has failed to convey emotion.

Most worthwhile art is that way; it "conveys emotion", or more precisely; elicits emotion in the viewer.

 

[robbins.photo]

Since the best result a photographer can possibly acheive is to convey emotion, wouldn't that make this the best photograph ever taken in the entire history of photography pretty much on that basis alone?

Assuming I'm willing to buy into that premise; I simply do not feel any emotion when I look at the photograph.

There is one very important component to the hypothesis that you have neglected: The viewer.

Here's my analysis:

1. Since the best result a photographer can possibly acheive is to convey emotion to the viewer, and
2. The viewer feels no emotion when viewing the photograph,
3. Therefore; the photograph has failed to convey emotion.

Most worthwhile art is that way; it "conveys emotion", or more precisely; elicits emotion in the viewer.

Well, the photograph was meant to convey or if you prefer "elicit" irrationality. So far it's gotten a lot of fairly irrational responses from several of the "viewers". I'd say, mission accomplished.. lol.

 

[Designer]

Well, the photograph was meant to convey or if you prefer "elicit" irrationality. So far it's gotten a lot of fairly irrational responses from several of the "viewers". I'd say, mission accomplished.. lol.

Creating controversy over a side issue hardly qualifies this shot as "successful".

 

[robbins.photo]

Well, the photograph was meant to convey or if you prefer "elicit" irrationality. So far it's gotten a lot of fairly irrational responses from several of the "viewers". I'd say, mission accomplished.. lol.

Creating controversy over a side issue hardly qualifies this shot as "successful".

Lol well I seriously doubt that was the original intent. I guess you'll just have to forgive me, I tend to forget sometimes that not everyone is as amused by irony as I tend to be

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[Gavjenks]

To be absolutely clear, I think this photo is indeed very successful for the goal of "taking a technically proficient photo of a generic couple kissing on a park bench." It does that wonderfully.

But I question whether that should actually be the entire goal. If you're getting paid to take portraits of clients, then yes, that's a fine end goal. It puts bread on the table end of story, you're doing great.

If you're an amateur doing it for the art, though, then I think the goal should be more ambitious, something like "A photo that speaks to the viewer and tells a story and sticks with you" which I don't think this photo does. But we already have a very promising lead for a way that it might possibly be improved to start doing exactly that!

 

[robbins.photo]

To be absolutely clear, I think this photo is indeed very successful for the goal of "taking a technically proficient photo of a generic couple kissing on a park bench." It does that wonderfully.

But I question whether that should actually be the entire goal. If you're getting paid to take portraits of clients, then yes, that's a fine end goal. It puts bread on the table end of story, you're doing great.

If you're an amateur doing it for the art, though, then I think the goal should be more ambitious, something like "A photo that speaks to the viewer and tells a story and sticks with you" which I don't think this photo does. But we already have a very promising lead for a way that it might possibly be improved to start doing exactly that!

Ok cool.. you guys familiarize yourself with this:

Kumbaya Lyrics - Peter, Paul & Mary

While I make smores... lol

 

[DanOstergren]

To be absolutely clear, I think this photo is indeed very successful for the goal of "taking a technically proficient photo of a generic couple kissing on a park bench." It does that wonderfully.

But I question whether that should actually be the entire goal. If you're getting paid to take portraits of clients, then yes, that's a fine end goal. It puts bread on the table end of story, you're doing great.

If you're an amateur doing it for the art, though, then I think the goal should be more ambitious, something like "A photo that speaks to the viewer and tells a story and sticks with you" which I don't think this photo does. But we already have a very promising lead for a way that it might possibly be improved to start doing exactly that!

Personally I like the ideas you gave for conveying irrationality, and I even said this. The thing is, this photo wasn't meant to express their irrationality, and your feedback wasn't suggesting improvement, it was suggesting that I change the entire concept of the photograph completely into something it was not intended to be. Like I said many times now, the irrationality of love was a quiet observation of mine of the couple and of young love. I wasn't out to make a portrait that you will remember for the rest of your life, but if that is your expectation then I am sorry to have failed you.

As for a topic title being required to completely match the photo in every way, I don't think this is necessary, nor do I have to cater to everyone who thinks it should. Do I think this photo shows irrationality? YES! Because I believe young love is irrational.

If you're an amateur doing it for the art, though, then I think the goal should be more ambitious, something like "A photo that speaks to the viewer and tells a story and sticks with you" which I don't think this photo does. But we already have a very promising lead for a way that it might possibly be improved to start doing exactly that!

I'm not an amateur brother, and I wasn't out to create an art piece here. Yes, I'm an artist, but I also have to pay bills and feed myself. You keep saying that you are suggesting ways to improve this photo, but what you are really doing is suggesting that the image should have been something completely different from what it is and what it was intended to be. I don't see this as feedback, sorry.