Would you like your work citiqued?
doug lauber
When I was studying photography at
Brooks Institute, we were given a weekly assignment,
and then at the beginning of our next class we would
place all of our photographs on easels in front of the
class. The 8x10" photo had to be expertly dry-mounted
on large white poster board. The teacher then proceeded
to critique each photo, based on aesthetic and technical
criteria. It was black and white stuff, shot with 4x5
view cameras and printed in the school darkroom, which
had about 25 enlargers at that time. (an excellent school)
Anyway, I feel the 'critique' process is invaluable,
and I've learned a lot through it. If anyone would like
me to take a look at their work, at a website, please
feel free to contact me.
By the way, hopefully in the next month or two, I'll
have my own website up and running, including some of
my favorite photos. -doug lauber
Jim Davis
Choupick
I'm not doug or a pro photographer, but I thought your pictures were very
ordinary. They are not bad pictures. just kind of plain. however keep in mind
that my photos on average suck ass with a rare O.K. photo in between. And I
have no web site. and no formal training. although I did look at an ansel
adams book if that means anything.
Yamil R. Sued
Maybe Nick Dekker on a good day!!
God, I Freaking Hated Crit day!!
Y
doug lauber
You're saying you aren't knowledgeable enought to give
a criticism of specific elements, but they generally didn't turn you on,
float your boat, etc. Oh. Okay. If you study lots of art books
and develope thinking about aesthetics, you'll begin to realize
how beauty is achieved and exactly why you like something.
But, maybe you're just not into the whole 'art-photography' thing.
-doug
benn...@my-deja.com
Pentax MZ-30 with Sigma lens 28-80mm... So, I've been photographying
for just 2 months... I'm not taking any photography training and have
been learning a lot from the Internet and especially from this
newsgroup...
So everyone is welcome to critique my work... I know I still have to go
a long way and I hope I can learn from all your feedback....
You may comment on this newbie's photos at:
http://photos.yahoo.com/crescent_au
Thanks
Ben
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Jerry Coffin
says...
[ ... ]
> You're saying you aren't knowledgeable enought to give
> a criticism of specific elements, but they generally didn't turn you on,
> float your boat, etc.
That doesn't look to me like it bears any similarity to what he said
at all.
> Oh. Okay. If you study lots of art books
> and develope thinking about aesthetics, you'll begin to realize
> how beauty is achieved and exactly why you like something.
> But, maybe you're just not into the whole 'art-photography' thing.
He had little to say beyond finding the pictures less than
compelling. That doesn't necessarily mean that he hasn't the
background to think about (or discuss) aesthetics.
When there's a lot right about a picture, but a few specific things
that detract from it, it's easy to point to those detractions, and
with some hard work (and a bit of luck) the photographer can keep
those things in mind and do better next time.
The shots of the "Walk in the Woods" don't impress me that way at all
though. They impress me as having one common shortcoming: the
photographer impresses me as not having really made his mind up about
what the subject of each photograph was. The overall subject of the
portfolio seems to be the tranquility of the woods, but none of the
pictures really does much to convey tranquility particularly well.
As pictures they lack any drama or anything in particular upon which
to focus our attention. They're a bit like the pictures you can find
in many conference rooms and such: people seem to feel that entirely
bare walls isn't stylish, so they put up pictures. At the same time,
they don't have any real statement to make and really want to ensure
that people concentrate on the conferences, NOT the pictures. The
result is that they hang up pictures that aren't distracting by being
absolutely terrible, but at the same time lack anything in the way of
drama or compelling subject matter.
Looking at the rest of the original poster's gallery, it's much
easier to find more specific criticisms. Just for example, the
picture of the ducks in the foreground: I found it rather disturbing
that the point of land in the background was cut off just short of
its apparent ending -- IMO, the picture would be better either
including the complete point of land, or else cropping it out
completely. As-is, it looks a bit like the photographer couldn't
quite decide whether to include it or not, so he sort of did, but not
entirely. The point of land ends up distracting more than
contributing.
The general rule I'd draw from this (as well as a number of other
photographs in his gallery) is one I don't believe I've seen stated
explicitly in any book, but I'd state it as "all or nothing." As a
rule of thumb, any element should be either completely included or
else completely excluded from the picture. Obviously, there's some
limit to this, since everything is somehow part of some larger whole
-- the trick is figuring out where you can cut things off without it
being visually intrusive.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Jim Davis
>The shots of the "Walk in the Woods" don't impress me that way at all
>though. They impress me as having one common shortcoming: the
>photographer impresses me as not having really made his mind up about
>what the subject of each photograph was. The overall subject of the
>portfolio seems to be the tranquility of the woods, but none of the
>pictures really does much to convey tranquility particularly well.
>As pictures they lack any drama or anything in particular upon which
>to focus our attention. They're a bit like the pictures you can find
>in many conference rooms and such: people seem to feel that entirely
>bare walls isn't stylish, so they put up pictures. At the same time,
>they don't have any real statement to make and really want to ensure
>that people concentrate on the conferences, NOT the pictures. The
>result is that they hang up pictures that aren't distracting by being
>absolutely terrible, but at the same time lack anything in the way of
>drama or compelling subject matter.
You would like maybe a naked lady in the woods for more interest?
>Looking at the rest of the original poster's gallery, it's much
>easier to find more specific criticisms. Just for example, the
>picture of the ducks in the foreground: I found it rather disturbing
>that the point of land in the background was cut off just short of
>its apparent ending -- IMO, the picture would be better either
>including the complete point of land, or else cropping it out
>completely. As-is, it looks a bit like the photographer couldn't
>quite decide whether to include it or not, so he sort of did, but not
>entirely. The point of land ends up distracting more than
>contributing.
Including more of the 'point of land' in the photo would have reduced
my main subject, the ducks. I don't see where that land back there had
any importance in this photo except to add a bit of background to the
very top of the photo.
Thanks for the 'critiques', it's about what I expected here.
I must add that scanning on my flatbed, I was very dissapointed in the
way the 'walk in the woods' photos came across. This type of subject
loses alot in the conversion, the original photos have a really nice
tonal range and quality of colours that I liked. I'm saving for a good
film scanner, and I can't wait to redo this stuff and try and capture
the quality that's in the film. Then again, a small web photo is also
tough to bring out details and subtle tones of such a subject. I do
feel though, that if those trees aren't tranquil, I don't know what
is...
webpage: http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/
Alexander Grekhov
Not bad for "work in progress", but...
Your Commercial Photography part of the gallery is pretty good. From
what I understand this is your specialty. Why so few photos then?
Alexander
Alexander Grekhov
I agree with your point completely -- listening to critique and looking
at some fine art is the most useful experience. Too sad that many people
are very touchy about their pictures and are overly sensitive to
critique.
Here are few of my images that I think worth showing:
http://www.sight.ru/ownpage.php?id=5045
The site is in Russian, but just follow the links on the left and you'll
be fine. Interesting to know your opinion. This site, by the way, is a
photo-critique forum where some very good phot-jornalists and fine art
photographers hang around.
Here are some links if you are interested:
"Top 200": http://www.sight.ru/rating.php?page=top200
"Hall of Fame": http://www.sight.ru/rating.php?page=fame
Photographers with highest rating:
http://www.sight.ru/rating.php?page=goldauthors
Most creative photographers:
http://www.sight.ru/rating.php?page=topauthors
Thanks,
Alexander
doug lauber
Jim, don't let Jerry's criticisms bring you down. Just
take it in stride and remember that your own
critical judgments can mature and help you to
compose better shots. It's part of the process of
becoming a good photographer.
Jerry mentioned the 'ducks1b' photo from your
'Nature' portfolio page.
Okay, you've got ducks in the foreground. You've
'captured' them on film, along with a land mass in
the background. Jerry is correct about the dark hill
almost coming to a point at the upper right part
of the photo. It is awkward, because the two lines
are converging as they approach the right side,
and it feels as though we can almost see where they
come together. It's the expectation -when seeing ANY
two lines that are converging. So you have a choice of
showing us, in the photo, the resolution of where the
lines converge and end, or easier, wait for the duck to
move just a little further left, and shoot it then, or
postion yourself more to your right. In either case the
dark hill would have upper and lower borders that
would not be 'near convergence'. Aside from that
problem, you would have to ask yourself, 'what about
my shot makes it a cut above, or 'special'. There are
billions of photos out there of ducks. Yours should have
unique elements, if possible.
Good news? Yes. Your Temple shot is beautiful -tranquil
and well balanced, with simple elements, without
any clutter. Do you see that there is no clutter in
this photo? The building is balanced by the tree/reflection.
Nice shot!
'Forest Clearing' lacks a central focus, except my eyes do tend
to go to that small reddish object.
'Clouds' is a nice composition. It's simple but not too boring,
while being well-balanced. I like the odd effect of the way
the cloud on the left 'reacts' to the photo's border.
'Kites' is the kind of subject that requires lots of shooting,
and motor-drive, if you have it. Then I'd sort through the
shots and pick the best 'poses' and create interesting designs
which usually involves contemplative cropping in Photoshop or
cropping while enlarging. With a chaotic subject like this,
taking many pictures increases your odds of getting that
'perfect accident'. Speaking of cropping, I can already see
about three better versions of your 'Kites' shot by simplifying
the composition through cropping.
'Gaspe2' si a bit too simple for me, in terms of placement
of form and line. The bottom half of the photo is way
too murky. I want to see something there. Yeah, a
nude would be nice, ...or an animal, or unusual rock
formation, etc.
'Leaves' is colorful. The elements of line and form need
to be brought out and exaggerated. Get in closer.
Your series, 'A Walk In The Woods One Day'
You remark'...It was about 3 o’clock
in the afternoon, and the winter sun was
sinking low in the sky. It was magic hour.'
That says it all. You were enjoying the magic hour, with that
nice lighting. 'Bamboo 1' is one of the better shots, but it
does have some degree of 'clutter'. By clutter, I mean small
sharp lines that aren't part of a uniform pattern and only
detract from the main design elements. In this photo, I see
the main elements as being the vertical bamboo, the
small dark horizontal dashes in the bamboo stalks, and
then the dark diagonal tree, towards the right. The slightly
tilted line above the 'path' is awkward. For the heck of it,
adjust this image in Photoshop. Make it black and white,
with a decent degree of contrast. Then just look at the
lines. Evaluate the 'design'.
'Bamboo 2' is an interesting photo. Even a nice photo
like this can be improved, just with the addition of
a strong focal point. The large consistent area at the bottom
left would be the perfect background for some object, like
whatever, -a cow, dog, beautiful woman, ugly man, etc.
Photos that capture beautiful scenery and great lighting
along with interesting focal points or foreground objects
can be achieved, although it isn't easy and requires lots of
'looking', lots of shooting.
Next time you take a walk in the woods, you might think about
bringing a friend. I hope my comments encourage you to take more
photos and think about lines, form, and design. -doug
doug lauber
That's also a nice shot, with a nice simple, but not
boring composition. The large tree qualifies as
the main subject matter. Excellent. -doug
(You might also try printing this series in
black and white. Nice tonal range)
doug lauber
> In article <3A4832BE...@earthlink.net>, dugs...@earthlink.net
> says...
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > You're saying you aren't knowledgeable enought to give
> > a criticism of specific elements, but they generally didn't turn you on,
> > float your boat, etc.
>
> That doesn't look to me like it bears any similarity to what he said
> at all.
His criticism was vague, because he's not very good at
picking apart photos, I guess. I thought it was funny when
he mentioned that he 'looked at an Ansel Adams book once.'
It's like he said, 'I don't know much about about photography,
but here's my criticism'. uh ...thanks? -doug
PBurian
http://www.naturephotographers.net
Go to Reader's Forum and then Image Critique. Easy to upload images for
critique.
Peter Burian
Jerry Coffin
spammeno...@hkg.odn.ne.jp says...
>
> >The shots of the "Walk in the Woods" don't impress me that way at all
> >though. They impress me as having one common shortcoming: the
> >photographer impresses me as not having really made his mind up about
> >what the subject of each photograph was. The overall subject of the
> >portfolio seems to be the tranquility of the woods, but none of the
> >pictures really does much to convey tranquility particularly well.
> >As pictures they lack any drama or anything in particular upon which
> >to focus our attention. They're a bit like the pictures you can find
> >in many conference rooms and such: people seem to feel that entirely
> >bare walls isn't stylish, so they put up pictures. At the same time,
> >they don't have any real statement to make and really want to ensure
> >that people concentrate on the conferences, NOT the pictures. The
> >result is that they hang up pictures that aren't distracting by being
> >absolutely terrible, but at the same time lack anything in the way of
> >drama or compelling subject matter.
>
> You would like maybe a naked lady in the woods for more interest?
Come on, you're clearly an intelligent person -- why insist on trying
to act like an imbecile?
The focus of a picture could be anything from a leaf or pebble that
had a particularly interesting texture/color/shape, to a spot of
light on the bark of one of the trees (or any of a HUGE number of
other possibilities).
In fairness, I should also point out that for some purposes, this is
EXACTLY the sort of picture that's useful. Stock photo agencies
often find it much easier to sell pictures like this, so a client can
"paste" in whatever focus of attention they want to, anywhere from a
couple walking through the woods to a wild-eyed mountain biker
bursting from the trees.
> >The point of land ends up distracting more than
> >contributing.
>
> Including more of the 'point of land' in the photo would have reduced
> my main subject, the ducks. I don't see where that land back there had
> any importance in this photo except to add a bit of background to the
> very top of the photo.
I'm not sure that's true -- moving just a little to your left could
have changed the angle of view enough to include the point without
diminishing the ducks. A rather different possibility would be to
simply crop the top of the photograph JUST enough that the entire top
edge of the picture is black, rather than showing any water above the
point. This would eliminate the lines converging toward the edge of
the picture, leading the eye out of the picture and away from the
subject instead of toward it.
In the end, it's your shot, and if you think it's best left alone, so
be it. The only question left in my mind is exactly why you asked
for critiques, but then refuse to listen to them and insult the
people who took the time to examine your pictures, think about them,
and attempt to be constructive in their criticism. I doubt I'll ever
know the answer to that though -- I have no objection to people
disagreeing with me at all, but your putting "critique" in quotes
seems to go well beyond simply disagreeing, into the realm of
attacking me, and I don't see any reason to continue conversing with
somebody who attacks me simply because I didn't try to say his
pictures were paragons of perfection.
doug lauber
Jerry Coffin wrote:
> >
> > You would like maybe a naked lady in the woods for more interest?
>
> Come on, you're clearly an intelligent person -- why insist on trying
> to act like an imbecile?
Okay, so you're interested in giving Jim's work a
helpful constructive criticism, but you end up pissing
the guy off, and calling him an 'imbecile', with the
tone of an immature 13 year old.
Tell us, -what effect did you think this would have on
Jim?:
'...They're a bit like the pictures you can find
in many conference rooms and such: people seem to feel that entirely
bare walls isn't stylish, so they put up pictures.'
Your point about the unresolved converging lines is
a valid one, for sure, but during your criticism you refer
to Jim, as though he's not here in the newsgroup, as
'the photographer'. He's actually sitting here at
the same table.
And you're clueless if you think this doesn't come across
as a put-down:
'Looking at the rest of the original poster's gallery, it's much
easier to find more specific criticisms.'
And the end result of your citicisms is ..what? Did your
criticism accomplish what YOU wanted? Think about it.
-doug
Jim Davis
>The focus of a picture could be anything from a leaf or pebble that
>had a particularly interesting texture/color/shape, to a spot of
>light on the bark of one of the trees (or any of a HUGE number of
>other possibilities).
The way I see it, these photos don't need a focus, they're shots of a
forest. They're carefully composed and show the true colours of nature
that I saw. I wasn't trying to get a compelling object into each
photo, just shooting the trees in some nice compositions.
>In fairness, I should also point out that for some purposes, this is
>EXACTLY the sort of picture that's useful. Stock photo agencies
>often find it much easier to sell pictures like this, so a client can
>"paste" in whatever focus of attention they want to, anywhere from a
>couple walking through the woods to a wild-eyed mountain biker
>bursting from the trees.
Why can't trees just be trees without humans walking through them, or
a wild eyed mountain biker invading the scene? I didn't want a model
for these shots, just the trees.
>> >The point of land ends up distracting more than
>> >contributing.
>-- moving just a little to your left could
>have changed the angle of view enough to include the point without
>diminishing the ducks. A rather different possibility would be to
>simply crop the top of the photograph JUST enough that the entire top
>edge of the picture is black, rather than showing any water above the
>point. This would eliminate the lines converging toward the edge of
>the picture, leading the eye out of the picture and away from the
>subject instead of toward it.
After looking back at the negatives, I have noticed that the printing
has cut off the point of convergence from my photo. That's the trouble
with scanning amateur lab prints I guess. I don't know how much
difference it would make to include that part, perhaps when I get a
film scanner I'll find out. What I have to do is frame a bit larger to
avoid edge cutoff.
>In the end, it's your shot, and if you think it's best left alone, so
>be it. The only question left in my mind is exactly why you asked
>for critiques, but then refuse to listen to them and insult the
>people who took the time to examine your pictures, think about them,
>and attempt to be constructive in their criticism. I doubt I'll ever
>know the answer to that though -- I have no objection to people
>disagreeing with me at all, but your putting "critique" in quotes
>seems to go well beyond simply disagreeing, into the realm of
>attacking me, and I don't see any reason to continue conversing with
>somebody who attacks me simply because I didn't try to say his
>pictures were paragons of perfection.
I was more bothered by the briefness of your critique and
nitpicking on some really small points. You seem to think my tree
photos need something else in them. Shooting nature isn't about
putting a prop in the right place, it's about framing up what you see.
What is unfortunate, is the small amount of critique received, and the
nitpicking about some small points. If you don't appreciate nature
shots, then don't comment on them. If you think some special object
needs to be placed in them, they aren't nature shots anymore. A photo
of a couple walking in the woods is NOT a nature shot, sorry. Trust
me, I was not attacking anyone, I was just dissapointed. My 'walk in
the woods' series has been well received by many who have seen it. I'm
not pretending these shots are 'great' photos.
I suppose the small amount of critique is a good thing - not
many people found much wrong perhaps.
webpage: http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/
Jim Davis
wrote:
>Light is dull in most of the outdoor pictures and it makes them boring.
>Not bad for "work in progress", but...
Like I said, the photos lost alot in the flatbed scanning. Although it
was getting dark in there, the prints really have a great, although
lowkey colour range. Muted perhaps, but moody.
>Your Commercial Photography part of the gallery is pretty good. From
>what I understand this is your specialty. Why so few photos then?
>
>Alexander
I've been concentrating on nature photos for the past while, and alot
of Commercial stuff is pretty boring. However, I am in the process of
updating with some more commercail stuff on that page. Thanks for your
kind comments.
webpage: http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/
Annika1980
>You seem to think my tree
>photos need something else in them. Shooting nature isn't about
>putting a prop in the right place, it's about framing up what you see.
Amen, brother!
Same goes for golf and doggy shots.
Take what you see.
A picture of a beautiful sunset or landscape is still beautiful, even if there
are no additional elements (human or otherwise) in it.
I showed one of my early sunset pics that I was pretty proud of to a pro
photographer friend of mine and his only comment was that the horizon was in
the middle of the pic instead of in one of the preferred positions. I hope
that I never get so jaded and caught up in the clinical aspects of photography
that I can't appreciate a picture of a beautiful sunset, even if it doesn't
conform to someone's "rules" of photography.
Kar Yan Mak
sport. They are only looking for praises and nothing more. I have a
Critique section on my site, I ask for critiques and really read and
comprehend what they have to say. I don't expect all my photos on my site
to be 100% excellent, not even near, that's why I ask for critiques.
--
Sincerely yours,
Kar Yan Mak
http://www.kyphoto.com
<brou...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ckik4tsccmuph2uid...@4ax.com...
> I wonder if we should have a FAQ that deals with how to accept critiques.
> Many people ask for critiques, and then proceed to attack the critic.
> That's certainly a way to encourage people to voluntarily give you their
> honest opinions!
Alexander Grekhov
> was getting dark in there, the prints really have a great, although
> lowkey colour range. Muted perhaps, but moody.
Often prints do not do you justice. Scanning your negatives is quite a
liberating experience -- you should try it!
> >Your Commercial Photography part of the gallery is pretty good. From
> >what I understand this is your specialty. Why so few photos then?
> >
> >Alexander
>
> I've been concentrating on nature photos for the past while, and alot
> of Commercial stuff is pretty boring.
It may be boring for some, but this is what pays off(?). Why not promote
what you do (best) at your own site?
Alexander
TopGunPics
http://hometown.aol.com/lightninpx/myhomepage/photo.html (lightning and
wildlife images)
http://hometown.aol.com/checksixphoto/mainpage1.html (aviation)
http://hometown.aol.com/airshowpix/balloonglow.html (ballooning)
Choupick
beautiful is different. I have, what I consider, some really cool pictures of
army stuff, but when I show them to my buddies they just kind of glance and
toss them aside one after the other very quickly. It's kind of disapointing
because they mean something to me and I think that everyone should see their
inherent value. they don't. So when your buddy says yeah thats a good sunset
but the horizon is in the middle, what he is really saying is your photo
doesn't intrest him very much for one reason or another but he's going to be
polite and not hammer you.
just one wierdo's views
doug lauber
All criticism is something to be encouraged, because the photographer
can take or leave the advice. Thinking about the aesthetic considerations
is what eventually leads to better photography and that is the goal of
many photographers. Check out the black and white compositions
of Ansel Adams. Or the colorful, beautifully composed nature shots
that you see in your typical Audubon Society calendar.
It isn't just about the subject. It's also about all of the
'design elements'. If you don't think about design elements,
then your photography won't be as good as it could be.
Studying aesthetics and analyzing paintings will also help
your photography. -doug
doug lauber
> >In the end, it's your shot, and if you think it's best left alone, so
> >be it. The only question left in my mind is exactly why you asked
> >for critiques, but then refuse to listen to them and insult the
> >people who took the time to examine your pictures, think about them,
> >and attempt to be constructive in their criticism. I doubt I'll ever
> >know the answer to that though -- I have no objection to people
> >disagreeing with me at all, but your putting "critique" in quotes
> >seems to go well beyond simply disagreeing, into the realm of
> >attacking me, and I don't see any reason to continue conversing with
> >somebody who attacks me simply because I didn't try to say his
> >pictures were paragons of perfection.
>
> I wonder if we should have a FAQ that deals with how to accept critiques.
> Many people ask for critiques, and then proceed to attack the critic.
> That's certainly a way to encourage people to voluntarily give you their
> honest opinions!
Brougham,
I think there are basically two, 'critique my work', types.
The first type is looking for ego-reinforcement, for someone to
say, 'Yes Grasshopper, you have done well.' This basically re-affirms
their self-image of themselves as a 'good photographer'.
The second type is wiser, and willing to have their
feathers ruffled, for the opportunity of seeing their strengths
and weaknesses through someone else's eyes. The potential
for growth, is very real, and part of this learning process involves
allowing themselves to be vulnerable.
-doug
Greg Ferguson
<dugs...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Brougham,
> I think there are basically two, 'critique my work', types.
>
> The first type is looking for ego-reinforcement, for someone to say,
> 'Yes Grasshopper, you have done well.' This basically re-affirms
> their self-image of themselves as a 'good photographer'.
>
> The second type is wiser, and willing to have their feathers ruffled,
> for the opportunity of seeing their strengths and weaknesses through
> someone else's eyes. The potential for growth, is very real, and part
> of this learning process involves allowing themselves to be
> vulnerable.
Yes. Very true.
The first type doesn't want a critique. They just want someone to agree
with them.
People who shoot to express themselves, to try to reveal their inner
visions hopefully fall into the second camp. Critiques for them are
scary because they've opened their heart and inner vision to scrutiny
from others. They're allowing others to shuffle by their child and nod
and mumble "good job" or shake their heads and go "tisk tisk, what an
ugly child". It's hard to detach our feelings from our work and look at
it objectively when we've put our insides into it and tried to capture
our spirit and/or feelings. But, unless we can detach and stand back and
look critically at our work the way others do, we won't learn. We'll run
for cover, throw our arms around our work and declare it sacred and
perfect and deny any unsightly bumps.
Perhaps there are some great analogies between our growth as artists (in
any medium) and our children's growth. After all, rarely are newborns
beautiful. Most are pretty unsightly - they're beautiful to their
parents. But, after a bit of time they do progress and they fill out and
gain their own features and begin to show identity all their own and
more and more people find beauty in them. Time passes and the uniqueness
grows until they begin to reach maturity. Then, we can't do a thing with
them, they run rampant, and want to drive our cars. Oh. Well, all
examples breakdown eventually. LOL :-)
Greg
Tony Spadaro
person wanting a critique, and not wishing to discourage anyone from
shooting, I only will crituque the work of people I actually know, and
only in person.
The critique is a necessary part of art education, but it is not
necessarily a pleasant one. I feel photography is democratic enough
that most people can do jes'fine without one.
--
Chapel Hill artist and photo restorer
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
Selecting Your First SLR - The Grey Card Walk
The Teleconverter Page. A Java Site
R. Saylor
wrote:
<splendid response snipped to save space>
Really deep insight into human nature and the realities of existence,
Greg.
Richard
Greg Ferguson
annik...@aol.com (Annika1980) wrote:
> A picture of a beautiful sunset or landscape is still beautiful, even
> if there are no additional elements (human or otherwise) in it.
Yes.
> I showed one of my early sunset pics that I was pretty proud of to a
> pro photographer friend of mine and his only comment was that the
> horizon was in the middle of the pic instead of in one of the
> preferred positions. I hope that I never get so jaded and caught up
> in the clinical aspects of photography that I can't appreciate a
> picture of a beautiful sunset, even if it doesn't conform to
> someone's "rules" of photography.
The "rules" are really guidelines established over the years based on
observing the preferences of many, many people who look at and purchase
art. Just like the rules for classical music composition, the rules are
meant to be bent or broken... once you understand why they exist.
All the rules point you to a way to create a more pleasing image. They
don't guarantee the image will be perfect. And, once you are aware of
the rules and you apply them without thinking in your shooting, then
you'll find your pictures are a lot stronger but it didn't take you any
longer to compose the shots. It's just a natural growth into taking more
aesthetically pleasing pictures.
For me, applying the rule of thirds is a natural thing that I've done
without thinking. Cropping unnecessary stuff was the lesson I had to
learn. Now, I zoom in tighter than I used to and I find the portraits I
take have a lot more intimacy and show a lot more vulnerability in the
person in the picture because their expression is more apparent. My
shots are a lot more pleasing to me and to them as a result.
So, getting back to the previous comments... seeing a pretty sunset
should be enjoyable, whether it was done in snapshot mode or in a
composed-mode. I find after having learned some of the "rules" that my
snapshot mode has improved vastly. And, my enjoyment of sunrises and
sunsets has gone through the roof. Heck, there's lots of times I don't
even dig out the camera. I just stand in awe watching the clouds.
Greg
Godfrey DiGiorgi
I like getting critiques on my photos, good or bad. But moreso than
critiques I like to know what of my photos evokes a response from people
who look at them, then secondarily why. Why is much harder than what, so
those are especially appreciated responses.
Godfrey
<http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/>
Greg Ferguson
chou...@aol.com (Choupick) wrote:
This has been a topic at several classes I've taken. Here's my
understanding of it:
Most people take pictures of things they find interesting. What
interests them will interest a small subset of other people that happens
to share the same mindset.
What is "beautiful" is accepted by a much larger group of people. Beauty
that is understood universally is harder to capture well, but when it's
done, a larger group of people recognize it.
We can still take pictures of things that interest us, but we need to be
prepared to accept the fact that a lot of people will shrug their
shoulders and scratch their heads and look at it this way and that and
walk away mumbling they don't get it.
If we take the time to find the beauty in what interests us, and can
capture that beauty, then they'll go "COOL!"
When I go out to shoot, I ask myself is something merely interesting or
is it beautiful. Usually I walk away from it if I answer "interesting".
If I think it's beautiful then I work on a composition. Doing this
increased my signal-to-noise ratio in my rolls significantly. It saves
me a lot of money too! :-)
Greg
Jsn234
From: Greg Ferguson gfer...@mac.com
Date: Thu, Dec 28, 2000 1:26 AM
Message-id: <gferguson-9C4D6...@news.earthlink.net>
Greg >>
While you make some insightful points, Greg. I, like Carl Sagan and McDonalds,
have seen "billions and billions" of beautiful pictures and beautiful scenes
(I've even take quite a few of them myself). The beautiful and formalistic is
merely BBB to me (Beautiful but boring). For me there has to be some kind of
interest that will hold my attention beyond mere beauty/aesthetics - if you
will, a reason to look at an image beyond just it being a photograph of a
beautiful subject or a subject photographed beautifully (both of which I
recognize and can respect when done extremely well), but I need some photo soul
food that goes beyond merely the beautiful. Some insight into the human
character, animal behaviour, architectural use, something more than just the
formalistic and formulaistic "pretty design" or exquisitely beautiful "design"
photographs. Ducks and sunsets and kids don't do it for me unless it exposes
something beyond either the beauty or the cuteness or the other trite qualities
seen in most "excellent" photography. Few photographers transcend the most
basic/obvious qualities of their all too photogenic subject matter. Then again,
since I've seen and made so many images, my standards are exceedingly high and
my tolerance for the obvious and/or the trite/cliche'd photograph is
exceedingly low. I simply expect more from a photograph - it must move me in
some way beyond its obvious subject matter or beyond that obvious photogenic
subject matter's obvious/trite qualities (beauty/cuteness/colors and or other
forms of formalism/etc.).
Jsn.
Viva!
If you wish to e-mail me just try and disconnect my brain. Have a thought and
go ahead, make my day! "Clifford, on your planet, what color is the sky?"
"Roads? Where we're going we don't need any roads" "1.21 gigawatts! Do they
make that in AA?"
Greg Ferguson
jsn...@aol.commybrain (Jsn234) wrote:
[...]
> For me there has to be some kind of interest that will hold my
> attention beyond mere beauty/aesthetics - if you will, a reason to
> look at an image beyond just it being a photograph of a beautiful
> subject or a subject photographed beautifully (both of which I
> recognize and can respect when done extremely well), but I need some
> photo soul food that goes beyond merely the beautiful.
[...]
Exactly. That's why I said when we've found something interesting we
need to find the way to present the beauty in it to others. Then you get
their interest two ways.
I tend to shoot landscapes because I happen to be chasing peace and
quiet and landscapes tend to happen when I'm "out there". While those
have a high ratio of beauty, they usually lack the "soul food" you
mention. I have to go somewhere weird or odd to find the truly creative
shots that pique my interest and make me want to chase down that elusive
beauty content in the subject. Much of the beauty of landscape
photography is patience - being in the right place when you know you
need to be there - with a dose of luck thrown in.
Heading somewhere out of my element with the camera - like a junk yard
or to an area outside my normal haunts, and I'll flounder for a while,
then the images will start clicking, and I'll find something unique and
beautiful that inspires me. I learned that lesson during a very early
morning shoot that I didn't want to be on, when I felt lousy and only
wanted to sit down and drink coffee in a warm cafe. Hangovers are like
that ya know!? :-)
Ciao,
Greg
Greg Ferguson
> I like getting critiques on my photos, good or bad. But moreso than
> critiques I like to know what of my photos evokes a response from people
> who look at them, then secondarily why. Why is much harder than what, so
> those are especially appreciated responses.
YES!
I want to know what it is I did right or wrong in my shots. I hate the
"It sucked" responses just as much as the "It rocks dude!" ones.
Shesh... give me something to go on, don't make me guess!
The "why" part is harder for people because you're asking them to dig
inside themselves and put words to an emotion you made them feel. Most
'Mericans avoid knowing how they feel at all costs it seems, so to get
them to do that is extremely painful, if not impossible. They revert to
frowning and saying, "I dunno, it just does."
The other type of response I don't like is the metaphorical or flowery
reply. My shots aren't sunlight tiptoeing across fields of etherial
pastels. Dammit Jim!, I'm a budding-photographer, not a poet! My shots
aren't obese with a touch of flatulence either. Well, maybe not. I do
profess to sometimes purposely taking shots of giant phalic symbols
standing erect and thrusting powerfully into a brooding sky. But, that's
just a guy thing. LOL
Critiques and responses from people who view our work require an
investment on their part that a lot of them aren't prepared or capable
of giving. Sometimes I need to be more understanding of that. Other
times they need to understand they're not capable of giving a valid
critique. Maybe then "It rocks dude" is sufficient praise.
Greg
Greg Ferguson
rlsa...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Huh? I musta been out of town when that happened.
Ah... thanks. :-) Just a serious mind-fart. It's an near-middle-age guy
thing that happens when you pull my finger. LOL
Greg
Jsn234
From: Greg Ferguson gfer...@mac.com
Date: Thu, Dec 28, 2000 2:40 AM
Message-id: <gferguson-3C5E2...@news.earthlink.net>
Ciao,
Greg >>
Greg:
I think you hit the nail (or the photo) on the head when you said the
word/concept “unique” and attached it to word/concept “beauty.” Just beautiful
ain’t good enough for me, there has to be some kind of quality within and/or
beyond the beautiful for a photo to rsie beyond the triteness of “mere
(photogenic) beauty.” That is what is so special about Arbus’s photographs to
me, she saw the disenfranchised, the ugly, the “freaks” as people worthy of
attention and she went beyond the mere facade of their ugliness and/or
plainness and beyond the mere beautiful strangeness of her subjects to reveal
their inner humanity. The woman who feeds her monkey like it was a baby in a
blanket in a Madonna and child photograph comes to mind, another is that kid in
the park w/ his look of deranged frustraition? hold ing what looks to be a
(hopefully) toy grenade, the twins holding hands? standing right next to each
other (which also reminds me of one of the shots in the hallway of blood scene
in Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining” in which Danny, the kid, has “different
visions”). Even though most still life photography, though excellently done w/
lavish production values, leaves me kind of flat emotionally, is it Irving
Penn’s? photo still life of a of a crushed cigarette that makes me have even
more respect for him than for Weston and his pepper as nude (though I
appreciate the originality of this Weston iconographic image). Some of Stanley
Kubrick’s cinematography in “The Shining,” “2001: A Space Odyssey” and “Dr.
Strangelove: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb” is also very
iconographic and worthy of/equal to the best images in any still photography
pantheon of great images. Ralph Eugene Meatyard’s and Francesca Woodman’s
images I also find stark/sparse/bare bones in their technique/subject matter
but hauntingly beautiful - not just “photogenically beautiful”... Most
photographers see only their subjects or the prettiness (photogenic qualities)
of their subjects, but few photographers see “beneath the pretty,” beneath the
surfaces they photograph - few look for and are able to capture the deeper
qualities of their subjects. Most photographers have eyes but lack a true inner
vision of their subjects and/or the world...
Jsn234
From: Greg Ferguson gfer...@mac.com
Date: Thu, Dec 28, 2000 3:00 AM
Message-id: <gferguson-07C26...@news.earthlink.net>
YES!
Greg >>
Hey, dude, your comments rock, dude! Kowabunga dude! Totally awesom dude!
Radical dude! Hey Jude dude!
:-)
Jsn. dude!!! :-)
Jsn234
Message-id: <gferguson-76DC3...@news.earthlink.net>
Greg >>
Does middle age mean that your too young to forget your name but too old to
remeber what you had for breakfast or what type film you shot last? :-)
Jsn. & McCartney
Godfrey DiGiorgi
> >photos need something else in them. Shooting nature isn't about
> >putting a prop in the right place, it's about framing up what you see.
I looked through your website and there are many good photographs. I
particularly liked the dog shots as they were funny ... the wide angle
lens perspective distortions are often trite and over-used, but they
made the dogs into very sweet caricatures.
I felt the forest shots were less successful, in general, for a couple
of reasons. First might have to do simply with the preparation for
website display ... a lot of the highlights were burned, shadow values a
bit muddy, and there was to me a general feeling of softness in focus.
Photos like this can be soft but need something that gives me the
impression of sharpness (they generally do better at a larger size as
well). The second thing was that they were very flat visually ... they
didn't have a "center" or place where my eye would be drawn to rest. I
kept wandering around them with my eyes unsettled, the opposite of what
I'd want from a peaceful forest image. This latter is a compositional
flaw; I like these kinds of photos but getting them right is a
challenge.
The most successful was the bamboo trunks:
<http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/Gallery/woods/bamboo1_600.jpg>.
A slightly different camera point and a little tighter composition, a
bit more work on leveling for shadow values and color balances, etc etc,
this would be excellent.
Good stuff though. These kinds of forest scenes are difficult to get
right. I've been working on one little patch of a nearby park for 10
years and I'm not quite there yet ... getting close, though. ;)
Godfrey
Jim Davis
Thanks for the excellent critique. I apologize once again for the poor
ability of my flatbed scanner to bring out tonal range and lovely
colours of nature in the tree shots. The originals really do have a
lovely lowkey range that's very pleasing. A film scanner is my next
purchase.
It's tought to get a central point of interest in stuff like this. I
guess I was trying for an overall composition in most cases.
Once again thanks, that was a good review.
webpage: http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/
Paul Ferrara
aperture from their anus.
Paul
Jim Davis <spammeno...@hkg.odn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:3a4fe091...@news7.odn.ne.jp...
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 06:24:09 -0600, brou...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >spammeno...@hkg.odn.ne.jp (Jim Davis) wrote:
> >
> >> I certainly give all critiques careful thought. What I don't
> >>want in a critique though is nitpicking. If you think someone's images
> >>are not interesting to you - don't bother commenting.
> >
> >Then when you elicit critiques you should say, "Please don't bother
> >commenting unless you have nothing negative to say."
> >
> >>Sometimes we have to grab a
> >>shot before the ducks swim away, don't we? Sometimes we don't have the
> >>most interesting and awesome scenes to shoot, do we? Sometimes we just
> >>get some nice photos. I can usually tell when someone quickly dashes
> >>through my photos looking for something that pops out of the page.
> >
> >And that's what the editing process is for. If you don't have a great
shot,
> >don't display it. If *you* know your pictures are lacking, don't show
them
> >to others. Above all, don't ask for their opinions if you don't want
them.
>
> I future, I'll just ignore all critiques that nitpick and remark on
> silly flaws. Any good critiques I'll happily give thanks for. Not
> everyone can give a good critique, just as not everyone can take good
> photos. It's funny though, that when a critiique is questioned, the
> first thing the critiquer does is take offence, and suggest the person
> is only after good comments. Just as the person being critiqued should
> consider any negative comments, the person critiquing should be able
> to step back and examine his methods as well.
> webpage: http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/
Greg Ferguson
jsn...@aol.commybrain (Jsn234) wrote:
> Does middle age mean that your too young to forget your name but too
> old to remeber what you had for breakfast or what type film you shot
> last? :-)
[X] D) None of the above.
It means being at that awkward in-between age when I am tired doing what
I've been doing for 20 years and not quite frustrated enough to tell
management to shove it, and not yet ready to launch a new career carving
hiking sticks from saguaro ribs for sale to tourists. And,
early-retirement is sounding REALLY good.
Jsn234
Date: Thu, Dec 28, 2000 7:57 PM
Message-id: <92gur...@news2.newsguy.com>
And you have to consider the source. Some critiquers don't know their
aperture from their anus.
Paul >>
Yes, but which has better bokeh, a picture or Uranus?
;-)
PBurian
getting dark in there, the prints really have a great, although lowkey colour
range. Muted perhaps, but moody.>>>>
No image is just right after it is scanned. You often need to adjust contrast,
color balance, saturation, etc. to make it correct.
In five minutes with Adobe PhotoDeluxe Business Edition, I can make a dramatic
improvement.
Peter Burian
Jim Davis
I dunno Peter, I tried adjusting these images (walk in the woods) in
Photoshop and ended up where they are now. My flatbed scanner just
isn't up to capturing the decicate tonal ranges necessary. In most
cases I have been able to get decent looking scans, but some subjects
need better scanning I think. Of course I was trying to keep the
photos looking like I saw them without changing the mood or balance of
them.
webpage: http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/
doug lauber
Right on, Greg. You get it.
Now maybe you can help me to convince others of
the fantastic benefits of critiquing, and critical aesthetic
thinking. -doug
doug lauber
Yeah, speaking of rules, I just thought of one of the first
ones that I learned, dealing with the way objects in a photo
overlap. It's the classic- telephone pole or tree 'growing' out
of your main subject's head. This idea gets you thinking about
the way ALL of your objects interrelate, and you start noticing
someone's finger sticking out behind someone's shoulder, etc.
These rules help to get you thinking about the aesthetics of
photography, form, line, design, etc. -doug
Heavysteam
activities in any art circle.
It depends entirely on the skill of the critic. I've sat in on many, many
student critiques and was apalled at the range of advice and the lack of
discernment of the critics. Often, they completely ignored the artistic merit
and vision of the photographer and nitpicked (and often wrongfully so)
completely irrelevent points. I have frequently had to talk to talented
students and encourage them to continue their effort.
In my opinion, setting your work out on the internet to be critiqued by unknown
and unproven internet gadflies is akin to casting pearls before swine.
Instead, seek out other photographers who do work you respect. Some will be
willing to sit down with you and discuss your portfolio. I try to do this as
often as possible with both students and peers. I try to focus on two
different elements, and keep them separate-- technical execution and artistic
vision. While the two are closely related (it's hard to express your artistic
vision without technical skill) they are also separate.
I try do do the same with my peers in my work, and have been given many, many
helpful observations over the years. And no matter how technically
proficient we become, photography is such a diverse field and there is always
more to be learned. (And sometimes relearned.)
The bottom line here is to be prudent and choose your critic-- just putting
your work out for any stranger to assess is a sure way to attract those that
don't know the difference between good and bad.
doug lauber
> The critique can be one of the most valuable, or one of the most damaging
> activities in any art circle.
Well stated. From reading your article, I get the definite
impression that you've got a lot of knowledge that hopefully
you can share with us. I'm new here, and I'd love to see
more articles about aesthetics, technical execution, vision, etc.
-doug
John Shafer
>>>snicker<<<
--
John Shafer
jo...@photographyreview.com
www.PhotographyREVIEW.com
Owner-posted camera reviews, camera talk and art!
"Jsn234" <jsn...@aol.commybrain> wrote in message
news:20001229083005...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
John Shafer
I feel I owe them some sort of thoughtful criticism. When I view an image
for "criticism", I always look for something useful to offer the
photographer. Nothing is perfect and I can always find something that can be
improved. Now I wonder if some of the things I have to offer might be
considered as "nitpicking". I know that sometimes we don't have time to
compose perfectly or get our exposure exactly right- and I usually say admit
that when it looks like it aplies. But thinking about these things after the
fact can sometimes help make us more prepared in the future. I know from
being critiqued myself that it can be a little uncomfortable, but it's good
to be able to accept any criticism gracefully. When I feel good about my
images I don't ask for anyone's opinion. When I ask for help I'm prepared
to accept anything that's offered. To ask for help and then judge where it
comes from sounds to me like false pride.
On the other hand, when I offer criticism I also always look for something
good to say. There are almost no images that are absolutely without merit.
Just the fact that someone asks for help means that they deserve some
positive reinforcement.
--
John Shafer
jo...@photographyreview.com
www.PhotographyREVIEW.com
Owner-posted camera reviews, camera talk and art!
"Jim Davis" <spammeno...@hkg.odn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:3a4cf57c...@news7.odn.ne.jp...
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000 14:02:54 -0600, brou...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>In the end, it's your shot, and if you think it's best left alone, so
> >>be it. The only question left in my mind is exactly why you asked
> >>for critiques, but then refuse to listen to them and insult the
> >>people who took the time to examine your pictures, think about them,
> >>and attempt to be constructive in their criticism. I doubt I'll ever
> >>know the answer to that though -- I have no objection to people
> >>disagreeing with me at all, but your putting "critique" in quotes
> >>seems to go well beyond simply disagreeing, into the realm of
> >>attacking me, and I don't see any reason to continue conversing with
> >>somebody who attacks me simply because I didn't try to say his
> >>pictures were paragons of perfection.
> >
> >I wonder if we should have a FAQ that deals with how to accept critiques.
> >Many people ask for critiques, and then proceed to attack the critic.
> >That's certainly a way to encourage people to voluntarily give you their
> >honest opinions!
>
> I certainly give all critiques careful thought. What I don't
> want in a critique though is nitpicking. If you think someone's images
> are not interesting to you - don't bother commenting. It seems that if
> someone can't find anything major wrong with your photos, they feel
> compelled to point out some really silly faults. I'm sure everyone's
> aware there are some small faults with just about any photo. But, we
> can't always go back and reshoot, can we? Sometimes we have to grab a
> shot before the ducks swim away, don't we? Sometimes we don't have the
> most interesting and awesome scenes to shoot, do we? Sometimes we just
> get some nice photos. I can usually tell when someone quickly dashes
> through my photos looking for something that pops out of the page.
> Personally, I believe the best photos are much more ordinary
> than those postcard types you see. They convey a feeling, a mood,
> perhaps even an ordinary, dull scene in a well composed frame.
> webpage: http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/