DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Critique?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 50, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/09/2002 09:55:58 AM · #1
Greetings...

<img border=0 src="//www.edward-weston.com/pt_lobos/goldencle_1939_dv_gom_1g.jpg]

Anyone want to take a stab at critiquing this photo?


08/09/2002 10:02:46 AM · #2
Good control of light and use of black and white John. (Is this a duotone? It seems more saturated than a standard black and white)

That bright light on the wall could easily have been a blow out. But you have a nice gradiation throughout.

I like the opposing subject elements (to me they seem opposing) of the toilet and the barn/building outside and the depth of field represented.

Would have made a very good entry for old.
08/09/2002 10:04:03 AM · #3
It's not my photo...
08/09/2002 10:06:55 AM · #4
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
It's not my photo...


Oh..well whoever took this photo doesn't need what little help I might have to offer(or anybodies from the look of it)

They are either very naturally gifted or very experienced.
08/09/2002 10:10:01 AM · #5
I don't know, it seems like a really formal, static, sober treatment of something people don't generally see that way... which could be novel and refreshing but it isn't to me. It just seems very lifeless. I think that's because of the rectangular, centred (at least in the horizontal plane) composition. If an Amish person photographed a toilet, I think it would look like this :P
08/09/2002 10:10:18 AM · #6
I'll give the details on it after some more people have a chance to comment on it... I chose this photo for a reason :)
08/09/2002 10:17:58 AM · #7
Originally posted by lisae:
I don't know, it seems like a really formal, static, sober treatment of something people don't generally see that way... which could be novel and refreshing but it isn't to me. It just seems very lifeless. I think that's because of the rectangular, centred (at least in the horizontal plane) composition. If an Amish person photographed a toilet, I think it would look like this :P

You see, I think of it differently.

The saturation of black and the light on the wall..There is a power here that really speaks to me.

Attention to detail like the even angle of the open door on the viewers left versus the angle of the right doorway.

The cloudiness of the window and the broken angles of the window frame.

The dark corners of the room in battle with the extreme bright areas. And the toilet has the character of an old grissled man with the broken seat and all.

Just superb.

I guess you can tell I really like it.

Now watch..it will be some teenagers photo who just got a kodak last week :-)

When I wish I took the photo that is about as good a compliment as I can give on my take :-)
08/09/2002 10:19:56 AM · #8
Hokie, I'm with you on this one... this is an inspiring photograph technically and subjectively for me...
08/09/2002 10:32:08 AM · #9
I know I still have much to learn, but I just can't see all of the things that hokie is seeing. The only thing that appeals to my eye is the shadowing on the wall. On the other hand, I remember when I took Art Appreciation, I didn't appreciate near as much of it as the teacher did!
08/09/2002 10:39:59 AM · #10
Looks like Adam's zone system was very carefully used -- the white is just inside the limits of pure white, and the black just this side of pure black. (But then I also need to readjust my monitor after installing some new graphics drivers.)

Nice, sharp image with a wonderfully deep focus -- I'd be very willing (though perhaps wrong) to believe this was taken with a view camera.

Don't see the saturation that Hokie's seeing -- looks like a straight B&W to me. (Again, monitor?)

The next statement is very tongue in cheek: it's quite obviously crooked. I mean, you can see more of the door and doorframe at the bottom of the shot than you can at the top... *grin*

Overall, technically well exceuted, but not something I'd spend a lot of time looking at in a gallery, nor would I be interested, had I the money, in puchasing it.
08/09/2002 10:40:37 AM · #11
Here's a real quick way interior designers, graphic designers, architects and other sorts develope their eye for contasting colors and elements.

Squint your eyes till just the patterns and contrasts dominate.

That helps filter extraneous detail and focus on compositonal elements like light and subject matter that dominate a photo.
08/09/2002 10:45:38 AM · #12
Hokie, that is an interesting concept :) When I do this on this photo, I get two perfectly vertical light elements in this image between the window and the door frames... :)
08/09/2002 10:50:48 AM · #13
John, its really funny. I got into making quilts about 10 years ago (don't ask!) and when I went to pick out my fabric for my quilt I would hold up the fabric and squint at it.

The little old ladies in the shop said to one another "Oh, oh..he's a squinter". Come to find out most of their serious quilters do the same thing picking out fabric. And here I thought I was being all pro and stuff and these ladies had probably been taught by their moms who had been taught by their moms etc, etc.

And I had to pay $10,000 a year to learn this!!!!
08/09/2002 10:53:53 AM · #14
The technical achievement here is awesome.

To balance the exposure between the indoor scene and the outdoor scene where both have good tonal range is beyond my ability.

I see strong contrasts in composition between the centered indoor scene and the building in the outdoor scene set at the lower right third.

08/09/2002 11:06:24 AM · #15
I'm impressed with the amount of detail and the angle of light coming through. You can see quite a bit of detail in the old building outside and it looks very much like a picture in a picture.
08/09/2002 11:07:34 AM · #16
What I'm wondering here is why I'm not seeing the critiques I would have expected to see on this photo...
08/09/2002 11:13:48 AM · #17
Did you want us to say something about it looking dirty and old? That was my first reaction when I saw it and then I started looking closer. Yes, I think it's very well done but no, I wouldn't want to use this bathroom. That's just the housewife in me I guess.
08/09/2002 11:18:42 AM · #18
I was expecting to see the usual critiques that I see on this site... imperfections... focus... lighting... composition... etc...
08/09/2002 11:19:06 AM · #19
*trying to read John's mind*

Ummm, why couldn't you have shot this at a different time of day so the light wasn't shining through the window. Why is the toilet centered side to side in the shot instead of using the rule of thirds and placing it an an intersection point? Why did you include both the toilet AND the window in the shot instead of focusing on one or the other? Why didn't you fix the perspective distortion? Why did you choose to use a broken window -- you should have fixed it first -- and while you're at it, get a new toilet seat and water tank....


* This message has been edited by the author on 8/9/2002 11:19:01 AM.
08/09/2002 11:21:38 AM · #20
Originally posted by Patella:
*trying to read John's mind*

Ummm, why couldn't you have shot this at a different time of day so the light wasn't shining through the window. Why is the toilet centered side to side in the shot instead of using the rule of thirds and placing it an an intersection point? Why did you include both the toilet AND the window in the shot instead of focusing on one or the other? Why didn't you fix the perspective distortion? Why did you choose to use a broken window -- you should have fixed it first -- and while you're at it, get a new toilet seat and water tank....



That's close to what i was expecting... lol


08/09/2002 11:24:00 AM · #21
Or maybe waiting for someone to say how the focal areas of the image are centered horizontally (not following the rule of thirds)?

Or is it that there seem to be multiple subjects? Is the emphasis of the image on the toilet, or is on the barn outside the window?

Or is it that the focus is a bit soft-- muddling out the wonderful details to be found here?

08/09/2002 11:25:01 AM · #22
Oops... took me so long to type, Patella beat me to it!
08/09/2002 11:28:44 AM · #23
Well, none of the people who have critiqued it here are the type to make those kinds of statements. You'd have to submit it (or another Weston photo... ahem! I looked at the image url :P) to the challenge to get that kind of critiquing :)

The cool thing about this photo is that it shows exactly how you should go about breaking all those "rules" to achieve your aim. It doesn't appeal to me personally, but it's definitely a very good photo.
08/09/2002 11:31:08 AM · #24
Well, for what it's worth, it's not a highschool kid with a Kodak... this is an Edward Weston negative... Cole Weston print...

I was reading on the Edward Weston website this morning... If you get a change to visit THIS SITE, please do... Cole Weston (Edward's son) was willed the right to make prints from Edward's negatives... After Cole is gone, there will be no more new prints of Edward Weston images...

The particular image I posted here is available for $1800....

The depth of field here is phenomenal... F64 is a very small aperture :)

08/09/2002 11:39:50 AM · #25
YAY -- I was right about the view camera -- I really need to sit down and figure out how to swap mine over from shooting on glass to shooting on film. :-)

I stand by my statement that I wouldn't want to buy this -- but there are some of his other architecture shots I like, and I'd be more than happy, were I rich, to pick up some of his Point Lobos stuff. :-)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/18/2021 09:09:26 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/18/2021 09:09:26 PM EDT.