|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/19/2006 09:40:13 AM · #176 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
In part that's because I'm actually trying to capture or empart some level of emotion in my images. I'm aiming for something with some communication or illumination. I'm trying to put a piece of me in the images. Not everyone is - and that's also perfectly valid and valuable. |
Judging by the photos you posted, you are succeeding very well. And as Ken likes to say in dimly-lit foyers, "Once you go Art, you never go back..."
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 09:40:25. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 12:37:04 PM · #177 |
Even though I feel a bit out of place talking here, I wanted to say something about these 2 sets of images.
It is a bit silly to say that the first two are boring, soulless, trite, uninteresting. I could go with soulless, maybe. They are beautiful in their own right, and in their own way they show a bit of who the photographer is. The connection with the viewer is that we all have seen this, but none of us has really seen it, and not like that.
The second set is more human, but do they connect emotionally with the viewer? Maybe. They are a bit snapshotty, they will connect mainly with the people involved in the making and the celebrating. They, also, show something of the photographer. They are more emotional in the sense that they are everydayish, life, celebration - they're people, not objects. But in some ways they can be perceived as just as trite as the first set.
How do you go from photos that look like advertisements or photos that look like they belong in a family album to images that are real, expressions not only of who we are or what we feel, but of who we are in the world around us, images that connect over space and time? And does it even matter?
I am not sure what I'm trying to get at here. It bothers me when art (or pictures) are grouped and dismissed (or glorified) as a group. Emotion, if that's what we want in a photo, can be present in all sorts of images, not only those of people.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 12:43:34 PM · #178 |
The first two show more creativity, perhaps more technical know how. Perhaps someone other than the photog came up with the idea, so now the photog has to be a mind reader LOL
The third one shows more of the photographers eye, timing and ability to capture the decisive moment. It's got more connection because it has people in it - we can relate to the joy and humor. funand emotions depicted. It's pretty hard to get emotionally charged by a paintbrush and light streaks.
The last one does the least for me - i see it's appeal in a classic sorta way but it's not pretty to look at nor evokes some great memory of an event.
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 12:43:58.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:28:56 PM · #179 |
strangely enough, i find the last one the most evocative. the small child, holding on to an unseen adult, squeezed by darker, larger adults. techincally sound and emotionally arresting.
the wedding shot is fun, well composed, but the tonal range neds a little oomph inthe bottom left. the two 'product' shots are beautiful images, very well done, the brush more intersting intelluctually.
talk about speedy, glib crits, eh?
that's what's so great about art - we all see different things in the same image.
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 13:30:27.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:34:20 PM · #180 |
Hey, I wasn't trying to critique the images in the two sets, or pick on  Gordon, was I was trying to get at (I think .... ) is that it's much more beautiful to consider all sorts of images and all sorts of ways to approach art and expression, rather than just say it has to be done one way to be something.
Reading through the thread again, nobody was saying that to begin with, so why? Beats me. Poor Gordon.
And .... I am NOT of the opinion that everything is subjective, that anything goes, that it is all in the eye of the viewer - not even close.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:45:01 PM · #181 |
um, yes. i agree. didn't i? and, yes, there is such a thing as 'bad' art.
oo, now the cat's among the pigeons... ;-) subjective and objective must work together. i know i said that somewhere a few pages back. so - we all agree, right?
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:48:08 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by xianart:
um, yes. i agree. didn't i? and, yes, there is such a thing as 'bad' art.
oo, now the cat's among the pigeons... ;-) subjective and objective must work together. i know i said that somewhere a few pages back. so - we all agree, right? |
So you did. So we do. I think ....
I think I live in a permanent state of confusion. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:49:59 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by ursula:
... I think I live in a permanent state of confusion. |
So THAT's your secret! :D |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:50:51 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by ursula:
... I think I live in a permanent state of confusion. |
So THAT's your secret! :D |
Yeah, that's the reason for all the shallow DOF. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:07:08 PM · #185 |
This thread started out discussing the methods and types of critiques available (or not) at DPC via the Critique Club.
Some interesting conversation followed pertaining to what people look for in a photograph, what and how to critique one, the why's, etc...
A thread went up recently discussing a specific image that I think has some similarities to this discussion. Then maybe not, but here's a link anyway for those having an interest.
Bicycle At The Market By Jean
I think it's great that exchanging of ideas like this can rise to the surface here at DPC occasionally. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:26:01 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by ursula:
It is a bit silly to say that the first two are boring, soulless, trite, uninteresting. I could go with soulless, maybe. They are beautiful in their own right, and in their own way they show a bit of who the photographer is. The connection with the viewer is that we all have seen this, but none of us has really seen it, and not like that.
|
Though to be fair (to me) I said that I find them boring, soulless, trite. Not that the necessarily are, or that anyone else has to find them that way. In a lot of ways though, they are successful here for the sorts of reasons you see discussed in the replies. There isn't anything for someone to not like about them - no highs, no lows. The other two have more going for them emotionally, so will tend to have people who like & dislike them. Simply because they actually inspire an emotional like or dislike.
Popular vs best, in many ways. I don't think a truly great picture can be universally popular. I was trying to in some small way illustrate this point, with photos that I've taken that I personally find great, vs those that I've taken that I found (even at the time) bland & insipid, but were much more popular. Comercially I made a few thousand dollars selling images that bored me and made photography not fun - so in part that's why I don't like that sort of imagery for now.
I've been trying to head in a different direction with my photos, away from the popular, towards something perhaps more personal (and thus almost by definition) less widely popular.
It depends on who the audience is for your images. It depends on if you want to make stock sales and win ribbons. If you want to hang in galleries. If you want to be true to your vision, or pander for praise. If those line up, all the better. It depends on what you are shooting for - and a whole host of other factors.
Originally posted by ursula:
But in some ways they can be perceived as just as trite as the first set. |
Ouch. Though I wasn't claiming to have succeded in doing something original in either case, I guess ;)
Originally posted by ursula:
Emotion, if that's what we want in a photo, can be present in all sorts of images, not only those of people. |
This, touches the very tip of the real question and cause for continual back and forth on this site and most others. Why do we photograph. More specifically, why do you (in the all encompassing sense) photograph and what happens when you apply your []iwhys[/i] to my photographs - taken with a completly different set of whys.
So - why do you take pictures ? But maybe more importantly, for giving an appropriate and well received critique, why did the photographer take the picture ? Does it matter if their why's and your why's never overlap ?
To communicate? To express your vision? To win ribbons? To make money? To record where you've been, what you saw, how you see ? To pass time? To make friends? For therapy? To relax? To annoy? To frighten? To titillate? To take pictures ? To
As an illustration, here's an other critique I recently got on the wedding photo above. Here, I think his view of it and mine overlap more closely, than perhaps Ursula's and my view, for example.
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 14:31:48. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 03:59:35 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by ursula:
How do you go from photos that look like advertisements or photos that look like they belong in a family album |
I agree that the first two look like advertisements, but the second two do not belong in a family album. They belong on the wall. Anyone's wall. That's why I like them better, not because they have humans in them. I agree with you that photos should not be put into "groups." I look at each photo on its merits, and I judge it as a work of art, by which I mean does it make a real connection with me. Advertisements are meant to delude in order to sell a product. That is not a real connection. Family album pictures are meant to exclude anyone who is not in the family (as a side-effect of including people who are), and therefore do not make a real connection, either. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:10:19 PM · #188 |
I knew I shouldn't ever have started saying anything here. Gordon, I like you and your images, and the way you think, very, very much. I figured I could lay into your images a bit because of that - dumb me.
I'm sorry. I did not mean to offend. Your wedding images are great, and I like your other images very much also. I really like how you are always looking for ways to go beyong the technical (which seems to come easy to you) to the meaningful (which is more difficult). I think that's the same way it is for John (jmsetzler) - the technical part is easy for him, it's the artistic part that's more work.
I better quit while I'm behind.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:25:44 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I knew I shouldn't ever have started saying anything here. Gordon, I like you and your images, and the way you think, very, very much. I figured I could lay into your images a bit because of that - dumb me. |
Don't worry about it - I wasn't really taking offense. Well, only slightly, in that often vunerable, hoping for approval part of me and everyone else who puts their pictures out there. That probably gets more vunerable with images that you feel have some emotional value or that you emotionally value and have a connection to. So I can easily cast out images that I don't care much for, to voting, critique, throw-away user comments etc. I'd find that harder to go through week in, week out, with images that I really truly cared about or valued. Maybe that's another part of the distinction I'm trying to draw, right there.
There have been images that I've entered in challenges that I cared about that got panned - in part because they didn't resonate with everyone, or anyone. In most cases, a few people _loved_ the image and many didn't. For the successful images, in terms of sales, or dpc ribbons - many people like them, but not to the same height as those unsuccessful, occasionally loved images.
I deliberately picked on my own images as I feel closest to comfortable talking about them in a negative way. I have a harder time doing that with someone elses images. I'd rather hear honest thoughts than platitudes. Though nobody ever really wants the hard, harsh, critical, nasty 'truth'
Honesty with compassion is about where critique needs to aim. So please, don't feel bad or that I'm offended. I'll survive ;)
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 16:28:49. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:28:49 PM · #190 |
I'm wondering if it wouldn't be simpler and better to remain silent on all the issues?
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:32:28 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ursula:
I knew I shouldn't ever have started saying anything here. Gordon, I like you and your images, and the way you think, very, very much. I figured I could lay into your images a bit because of that - dumb me. |
Don't worry about it - I wasn't really taking offense. Well, only slightly, in that often vunerable, hoping for approval part of me and everyone else who puts their pictures out there. ..... |
I take offense at the same things, and feel hurt the same way. I feel very sad that I felt it OK to stoop to doing that to someone else. I apologize again, Gordon. And in truth, I really like the image of the little girl, it actually has a similar vulnerable look to it as what you're talking about here. It's so easy to hurt. You're right, "honesty with compassion" is the way to go.
I'm sorry.
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 16:36:57. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:35:12 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I'm wondering if it wouldn't be simpler and better to remain silent on all the issues? |
Simpler, easier yes. Better probably not. Maybe sometimes, because so much of what is said is opinion, and not everybody needs to express their opinion all the time.
I still think I should quit while I'm behind. Bad habit this one to keep going and dig oneself into a hole. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:39:06 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Simpler, easier yes. Better probably not. Maybe sometimes, because so much of what is said is opinion, and not everybody needs to express their opinion all the time. |
I think the opinionated aspect of it is why I will choose to keep mine to myself. I can critique to myself with more satisfaction probably.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:45:23 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I still think I should quit while I'm behind. Bad habit this one to keep going and dig oneself into a hole. |
Well, I think it's a good thing to have opinions and express them. :) You and I probably have different opinions on Gordon's pictures, and if we were to debate them (let's not! ;) we would both start talking about their meaning, and how the techniques of the photographer contributed to that meaning. Our mode of discourse would (or should) be the same for all four photos. That's what I'm trying to get at.
There is no such thing as a purely technical photo, and therefore no use for a purely technical critique. Every photo, even an advertisement, is trying to achieve some sort of effect, and that needs to be taken into consideration before a critiquer just automatically spouts off "rule of thirds", "tack-sharp focus", "depth of field", "alien bees", etc.
The newbie, myself included, has to learn how each technique relates to a desired effect, which in turn relates to the overall effect of the photo. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 04:51:03 PM · #195 |
ya know, i went through 5 years of post secondary art education. we learned about the golden thirds etc., but i never once heard it mentioned in a crit. if it was used, it was used, if it wasn't, there was good reason, and it wasn't mentioned.
just a passing thought...
o, and what posthumous said... yep.
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 16:51:27.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 05:35:43 PM · #196 |
| I think I'll just start giving critiques without mentioning any technical items and operate under the assumption that the photographer did everything intentionally. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 05:46:20 PM · #197 |
I've been passively reading this thread and had started a few posts that I deleted. My feelings and thoughts were being expressed far better than I could have done with my own words.
I really hope this thread, even in some small way, improves the site and pushes people to look more deeply into the images and less for the technical.
Those technically centric comments had been helpful to me in the past ("too dark"..."the Stop sign is distracting"..."too bad about the blown highlights on the left side of her face" etc.) but now hold little if no meaning. To some degree they bother me. In fact, those details began effecting...even hurting the way I would shoot. I missed to many opportunities obsessing over those details and it started paying very low dividends.
My best work is nowhere near technically sound. I'd bet my best to come won't be either...and it won't matter in the slightest.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 05:55:38 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think I'll just start giving critiques without mentioning any technical items and operate under the assumption that the photographer did everything intentionally. |
You can mention how those "technical choices" affect you, without suggesting that they are "wrong" -- I think that's what gets most people on the defensive when they hear criticism.
I have a lot of pictures where I am (obviously!) more concerned with the content or message than with technical matters. Sometimes the picture with the technical "defect" was chosen specifically for the contribution that defect made to the overall composition or message, and sometimes it's just an unavoidable component of the frame. Either way, if I chose to leave the photo in the challenge, I expect to hear whether that defect added to, detracted from, or had no effect on your viewing experience. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 07:26:16 PM · #199 |
| I have a hard time comprehending what appears to be the prevalent notion here that technical strength and conceptual strength (and/or strength of the message) of photographs are mutually exclusive; they just can't co-exist in a photograph. The photographs are either "stock" or "oh how artsy!". Speaking of the term "artsy", by the way, I'm glad none of my photographs has ever been described as artsy by anyone here or outside DPC as far as I can remember now, because I think that "artsy" is merely a charitable euphemism for "Pretending to be artistic but not quite fooling anybody", but apparently many other people think it a form of praise. Anyway...Regarding the scope of a critique, I see no reason why technical criticism should be avoided. In fact, it should be as much a part of any serious critique as the conceptual criticism since whether the communication the photograph in question intends to make succeeds or not depends not only on the inherent strength of the message (story, idea, content, etc.) but also on how that message is presented. Now, "Moonlight Sonata" is truly a beautiful piece of music, but I wouldn't like listening to it from a piano player who misses a note or two every now and then, or certainly not from an out-of-tune piano. When I watch flamenco dance, I want to see Sara Baras, Antonio Canales and dancers of their caliber, not somebody who continually trips over himself and lands on his nose. I wouldn't enjoy reading "Crime and Punishment" if Dostoevsky's vocabulary were limited to 200 words, 150 of which he couldn't even spell correctly. Why should [fine art] photographers be exempt from expectation of technical excellence? Or put another way; why is it that if you want to produce a fine art photograph it'd better have some noticable flaws, which will not -or rather should not- be criticised, because technically flawless photographs belong in the stock/commercial category by default? What I mean to say by this somewhat disjointed discourse is that critiquing the way the content [of a presumably fine art photograph] is presented/delivered is as valid and important as critiquing the content itself, and everybody has every right to critique only one of them if they choose so. If I say of a photograph that it has very distracting blown-out highlights and lost texture, and the photographer chastises me for not focusing on the content, I'd probably respond by saying "It's not my fault the glaring technical flaws almost completely overwhelm and obscure the content", and then if the photographer thinks that I'm superficial and worthless...Well, the feeling will be mutual. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 07:36:41 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think I'll just start giving critiques without mentioning any technical items and operate under the assumption that the photographer did everything intentionally. |
You can mention how those "technical choices" affect you, without suggesting that they are "wrong" -- I think that's what gets most people on the defensive when they hear criticism.
I have a lot of pictures where I am (obviously!) more concerned with the content or message than with technical matters. Sometimes the picture with the technical "defect" was chosen specifically for the contribution that defect made to the overall composition or message, and sometimes it's just an unavoidable component of the frame. Either way, if I chose to leave the photo in the challenge, I expect to hear whether that defect added to, detracted from, or had no effect on your viewing experience. |
That's assuming that as someone simply looking at an image, I can discern "defect" from "intent". Unless otherwise noted by the photographer, I will assume that all was done intentionally.
From now on, I will leave the technical issues; focus, exposure, lighting and so forth out of the discussion and discuss the photo exclusively in terms of aesthetics and my response to the image. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 06:42:30 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 06:42:30 AM EDT.
|
