| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/12/2007 07:47:08 AM · #26 |
| I know most of my blurry images are very similar to each other, in style and model. But would be interested in some more fine critique on any of them. I realize I am not one of the formal "pedagogues" of this group but I will throw my opinions in the hat as well. |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 08:03:36 AM · #27 |
If people dont mind I would like to make a comparison of 2 of Yanko's images as to why one works for me and the other one does not.
1.  2. 
The first image was the first one I came across. Thought it was a very cool idea but as a whole it was falling a bit flat for me. Too much blur (too much blur for a blur challenge?). The eyes stand out well but the overall context felt lacking. Cropped too tight which didnt allow for the background to really compliment the main subject. Creative use of blur and flash for sure but short lived interest for me.
The second image however I felt had everything that the first one was missing. The blur was lessened which allowed for kitty's shape to be more prominent without it having to actually have detail. I felt it allowed the eyes to be prominent yet not be the only thing to look at in the image. Pullign back on the crop allowed for the lines, colors and shadows of the background to be seen and more compliment the image as a whole. It allowed it to be more complete. A slight crop on the left to remove the dark strip on the left but keep the lines next to it may have been nice, but overall I feel this second image is a stronger image all around. One that I enjoy going back to and looking over again. |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 09:56:45 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
1. 2. |
I think your comparison is right on, but I prefer 1 for the very reasons you describe. There is a balance to be struck between representation and abstraction in a photo like this, but where that balance is for a viewer is entirely subjective. I personally need very little context to envision the "reality" of a photo, so 1 gives me all the context I need, making those huge green globes a treat. For me, 2 gives me so much context that the round eyes seem almost just a gimmick. But to be fair, had I NOT seen image 1, I would probably love image 2. |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 10:28:08 AM · #29 |
sure, have at me...
it can only make me see better
or not?
Thanks to those willing to spend their time on this!
Anni |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 03:29:01 PM · #30 |
I am going to step out here again and do a comparison between two images from the same photographer. Please tell me to shut up and go away if this is not in line with the premise of the thread.
On behalf of  rheverly -
1. 
What I like about this image are the colors of the subject and the patterns created with the camera. Cool almost fluid movement from left to right swirling around the bottom and fading off. The abstractness of it makes me not strain to see what the subject actually was. The motion blurred contrasty shapes just work for me. It has a good feel.
2. 
This one doesnt work so much for me. The vibrant color is nice, but its not enough to carry the image. Where in the first the shapes and patterns are a great compliment to the colors, this one just seems to be a bit flat. Almost like a big splatter on a wall with no real purpose or interest grabbing element to make it more than what it is up front. |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 03:45:21 PM · #31 |
One more comparison before everyone tells me "Shut up - you aint on the list!"
Per  jutilda
1.
This shot drew me in from thumbnail. I was drawn to the lines and colors first off, but it was the overall texture of the shot that kept me the extra bit longer. It almost feels like you could reach into the screen and touch it. That it would have hard underbody to it but also an almost furry soft touch on top as well. Like most of the pictures I prefer here there is a flow and movement to the shot that is very appealing. I may have tweaked the blacks to make them just a bit more prominent, but overall I enjoyed this image very much. Just enough blur to almost make it abstract but not enough to totally hide what the subject matter was.
2. 
This one didnt really do much for me. Where the first image had a flow and primary subject that was rewarded by it, this image is just a bit too busy for me with out any real impact. Had the background been missing the car and building (next time see if you can get them torn down before you shoot) and we had just been left with the dog and his owner the image could have been much stronger. AS is though the man kind of blends in in a not so good way with the vehicles and the lines from the blur on the building end up distracting. The first image works well as a blurry image because it benefits from all the aspects (lines, colors, flow, contrast) working together to provide a somewhat cohesive subject. This second image just feels more like a quick snapshot that was taken out of focus. |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 04:00:14 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
1. 2. |
I think your comparison is right on, but I prefer 1 for the very reasons you describe. There is a balance to be struck between representation and abstraction in a photo like this, but where that balance is for a viewer is entirely subjective. I personally need very little context to envision the "reality" of a photo, so 1 gives me all the context I need, making those huge green globes a treat. For me, 2 gives me so much context that the round eyes seem almost just a gimmick. But to be fair, had I NOT seen image 1, I would probably love image 2. |
For me image 1 was the first one I saw and I did find it cool, but it was when I pulled down and saw the second image in his details that I got a bit giddy as from thumbnail I could see what I knew I would like better.
And such is the diversity in the appeal of these images. We can look at some of the winning images of DPC and point to specific things that allowed that image to bubble to the top of the general voting public. Detail, sharpness and a generally acceptable composition - the recipe that seems to work for ribbons here at DPC. With these two threads though we are looking beyond the generally acceptable with a group of people that are striving to find and create work that is not the norm. These types of images and the variety within the "genre" are going to be appealing to a smaller and smaller group of people - most likely a group of people with slightly more eclectic tastes and reactions. And with that the opinions and perspectives will be wide and varied.
With all that said and meaning probably absolutely nothing or making any sense, I will add that this thread rocks and I hope it takes off well. |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 04:16:46 PM · #33 |
Tim - thanks. You are able to articulate without bashing a photo to smithereens. I like your take on both of them, although I do love the stripes of the guy walking his dog. You're right - next time I go on a photo shoot at a parking lot, I'll be sure and take my dynamite so that I can demolish anything in the way that would ruin the background ;~p
|
|
|
|
08/12/2007 06:37:53 PM · #34 |
Tim, I also don't know how the rules go here, but I really appreciate your comments. The second image is the weakest of this side project for me, I think, something I was trying and stepping way out of my comfort zone on. You hit the nail on the head as to why I think it doesn't really work, either (and I would not have articulated it so cleanly). While I wasn't thrilled with it, when I'm out of my comfort zone I like almost nothing I do, so I've learned I need to post these to get the feedback I need. Thanks for helping with that (and to the others who posted on the pic with similar reactions and responses). By the way, the "non-negatived" version suffered from all the same flaws, but didn't even have the bright colors going for it (ie, it was dull as well as flawed).
Thanks so much for jumping in here, I appreciate it!
Best,
Rob |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 07:37:52 PM · #35 |
I dunno, timfy, yer soundin awful pedagogickle. I think goodman should add you to the list. In the meantime, just act like you are. I've come a long way with that technique!
Okay, let's talk about two of krnodil's photos.
There's an art to blurring an entire setting and yet having it be completely recognizable. The strong geometrical shapes of the stairway and railing and boardwalk, combined with the infinitely recognizable shapes of light through leaves, makes this photo perfectly clear in all its fuzziness. But if we take the time to follow the pathway, it leads us into clarity, where we see a railing and a few stairs. Interestingly, the focused part is at a confusing angle, so is actually less "clear" than the unfocused part. I like the struggle here between clear and unclear.
This photo illustrates another possibility for blur. Blur can give a feeling of motion. This is obvious when it comes to "motion blur," duh. But the blur here is not motion blur... and yet it still creates a feeling of motion. To be in tune with the understated title, I would suggest a motion towards death, a curving into oblivion. As you work with blur, I think it's helpful to catalogue as many of these potential effects as possible... as well as discovering new ones, of course! |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 07:58:51 PM · #36 |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 08:00:25 PM · #37 |
Since I'm being a pedagog here, I want you all to write in your notebooks this other purpose of blur that Jutilda demonstrates in picture 1 above:
blur to transform
it's a very important one. |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 08:03:24 PM · #38 |
| I respectfully request that if you ask for blur feedback, please either provide a thumbnail, a link, or create a "Blur" folder in your portfolio that's easy for me to find. Or get timfy to comment on it first. ;) |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 08:10:20 PM · #39 |
from lunachicken:
One of the possibilities for blur is to convert it to noise. This can give your photo the appearance of grainy film. It is similar to quiet_observation's strategy above -- make your photo look like something else -- though this is less elaborate. Personally, I love the film grain look. It gives a photo like this a documentary feeling, a spying, voyeuristic sort of feeling, that adds excitement to the shot. This works well with the closeup and the head protruding from some sort of enclosure/boundary. There's just a general feeling of confrontation, of the voyeur getting caught, that adds interest for the viewer. |
|
|
|
08/12/2007 09:48:20 PM · #40 |
I posted to the "Blurry August" thread specifically so so "you folks" could tell me what works and what doesn't work for you, so have at them if you want. My Blurry Photo Gallery
I find it interesting that those photos have already attracted what seems like more than the usual number of comments, so thanks to all those other posters who've been looking at other people's photos as well! |
|
|
|
08/13/2007 01:31:24 AM · #41 |
|
|
|
08/13/2007 08:36:02 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Okay, let's talk about two of krnodil's photos.
There's an art to blurring an entire setting and yet having it be completely recognizable. The strong geometrical shapes of the stairway and railing and boardwalk, combined with the infinitely recognizable shapes of light through leaves, makes this photo perfectly clear in all its fuzziness. But if we take the time to follow the pathway, it leads us into clarity, where we see a railing and a few stairs. Interestingly, the focused part is at a confusing angle, so is actually less "clear" than the unfocused part. I like the struggle here between clear and unclear.
This photo illustrates another possibility for blur. Blur can give a feeling of motion. This is obvious when it comes to "motion blur," duh. But the blur here is not motion blur... and yet it still creates a feeling of motion. To be in tune with the understated title, I would suggest a motion towards death, a curving into oblivion. As you work with blur, I think it's helpful to catalogue as many of these potential effects as possible... as well as discovering new ones, of course! |
I will agree with you on these images Posthumous - however I most likley would have not used words that sound as philosophical as you did. These are both images I opened and viewed in the other thread and I liked them both. For me though, the one thing that my eyes were craving on both shots was some color. DOnt get me wrong - I love b&w images, but for me both of these were yelling out for some color to finish out the blur or bokeh. Muted colors, slightly hue shifted colors, nothign necessarily bold in any way but something to add to the harmony of the other aspects of the image. |
|
|
|
08/13/2007 10:14:50 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Okay, let's talk about two of krnodil's photos.
There's an art to blurring an entire setting and yet having it be completely recognizable. The strong geometrical shapes of the stairway and railing and boardwalk, combined with the infinitely recognizable shapes of light through leaves, makes this photo perfectly clear in all its fuzziness. But if we take the time to follow the pathway, it leads us into clarity, where we see a railing and a few stairs. Interestingly, the focused part is at a confusing angle, so is actually less "clear" than the unfocused part. I like the struggle here between clear and unclear.
This photo illustrates another possibility for blur. Blur can give a feeling of motion. This is obvious when it comes to "motion blur," duh. But the blur here is not motion blur... and yet it still creates a feeling of motion. To be in tune with the understated title, I would suggest a motion towards death, a curving into oblivion. As you work with blur, I think it's helpful to catalogue as many of these potential effects as possible... as well as discovering new ones, of course! |
I will agree with you on these images Posthumous - however I most likley would have not used words that sound as philosophical as you did. These are both images I opened and viewed in the other thread and I liked them both. For me though, the one thing that my eyes were craving on both shots was some color. DOnt get me wrong - I love b&w images, but for me both of these were yelling out for some color to finish out the blur or bokeh. Muted colors, slightly hue shifted colors, nothign necessarily bold in any way but something to add to the harmony of the other aspects of the image. |
I don't know if it's "legal" for the originating photog to chime in here, but I find Tim's comment to be very interesting. I agree with him that the kind of bokeh you get at very wide apertures seems to do better in color than b&w, and probably, at least for the "into the woods" shot, a color version might still be effective. My experience with taking these two photos was unusual though, if I might take a moment to share.
I usually "find" my b&w images after the fact, after the shot, in post-processing; but with these two, I took the shots deliberately with the idea of making them b&w (I hope this is a sign that I am getting better as a photographer). The play of light factored in big on both - with "into the woods", it was such a dark area, very shady, that color, or at least color contrasts, were actually hard to come by - everything was a dark green or dark brown, except for those bright and glaring shots of white light.
For the "last hurrah" - these flowers were as parched and near-dead as could be, and basically colorless, even the stalks weren't particularly green. I could have created color in Photoshop, perhaps, but this was as clearly a b&w setting as could occur in nature, I think. :) That being said, I was so focused on that grouping of dead flowers that perhaps I overlooked and underestimated the color potential of the background to make the dying flowers in the foreground stand out in sharper contrast - make it more about life and death, rather than just death.
If I get a chance I'll play around with it some more and see what happens...
Thanks for your input, posthumous and timfythetoo, I do appreciate it! :)
|
|
|
|
08/13/2007 10:30:51 AM · #44 |
We have been discussing about why a blurry photo works or not (inside this group).
Now, I would like to encourage a discussion around this photo from the Shadows Challenge.
 by Goodman
Looking at score breakdown:
- We clearly can see a barrier at 4 showing the result of having a message to leave comments if less than that. IMO if it wasn’t that message this photo would get much lower scores (1, 2 and 3s), and for sure would put this image behind a 5 average score.
- 55 votes behind or equal 4, meaning 37% putting this image in the group of the bad works.
- 31 votes above or equal 7, meaning 21% putting this image in the group of the good works.
- 5 votes x 10. A very small group (3,5%) really loved it.
- And 3 fav’s til now.
For the record we’ll have:
- 37% scored this image in the group of a Bad Image!
- 21% scored this image in the group of a Good Image!
IMO this is an excellent photo and deserved much more recognition from people, but that didn’t happen.
WHY?
(yes, I know, this is not a sharp image! But I would like to go with the discussion a little further and try to figure why poeple (outside this group) doesn't find beauty in these kind of images)
|
|
|
|
08/13/2007 10:54:06 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by De Sousa:
We have been discussing about why a blurry photo works or not (inside this group).
Now, I would like to encourage a discussion around this photo from the Shadows Challenge.
by Goodman
Looking at score breakdown:
IMO this is an excellent photo and deserved much more recognition from people, but that didn’t happen.
WHY?
(yes, I know, this is not a sharp image! But I would like to go with the discussion a little further and try to figure why poeple (outside this group) doesn't find beauty in these kind of images) |
We went from the specific to the general in this post rather quickly.
I have no objection to 'blurry' images. Frequently, I like them. and do them myself, sometimes on purpose. As far as this specific image goes, well, I gave it a nice, neutral five. Again, I have nothing against bird feet (I took my licks with this  a long time ago.) But this image, artistic as it is, just felt wrong to me. There was too much. High key, low key, an unlovely tint (IMO of course), half a chicken, odd composition, and all that.
So, maybe we just have to adjust for various tastes in art/photography.
And Goodman I really enjoy your work; a stroll through your portfolio can make my day. |
|
|
|
08/13/2007 10:58:23 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by De Sousa:
We have been discussing about why a blurry photo works or not (inside this group).
Now, I would like to encourage a discussion around this photo from the Shadows Challenge.
by Goodman
Looking at score breakdown:
- We clearly can see a barrier at 4 showing the result of having a message to leave comments if less than that. IMO if it wasn’t that message this photo would get much lower scores (1, 2 and 3s), and for sure would put this image behind a 5 average score.
- 55 votes behind or equal 4, meaning 37% putting this image in the group of the bad works.
- 31 votes above or equal 7, meaning 21% putting this image in the group of the good works.
- 5 votes x 10. A very small group (3,5%) really loved it.
- And 3 fav’s til now.
For the record we’ll have:
- 37% scored this image in the group of a Bad Image!
- 21% scored this image in the group of a Good Image!
IMO this is an excellent photo and deserved much more recognition from people, but that didn’t happen.
WHY?
(yes, I know, this is not a sharp image! But I would like to go with the discussion a little further and try to figure why poeple (outside this group) doesn't find beauty in these kind of images) |
Well, alternatively, what makes this image so good to you???
what I suppose is that there is a reluctance among most viewers, @ DPC & elsewhere, to have to take the extra step to "read" an image..the point then resonates when the image is in a challenge as this was, and the time alloted to view each image is limited. I also imagine there's probably a very small market, if you will, for this sort of image. It has an edge to it; I suppose one could call it abstract and perhaps "modern" for what that's worth. Perhaps that means there is a discomfort among viewers who are not used to seeing images like this? and it's no doubt also a very personal reaction each person has when viewing any image: live, film, movies, and so on. My sense is for the avergae viewer (& I totally include myself in this group), the image with a story, or that grips you emotionally somehow, is the one preferred.
Reminds me of the initial public disdain for the Impressionists...
Personally, I noticed my initial reaction to viewing this was much different than it would have been had I not been participating in this side challenge. I have chnaged the way I view an image, or rather, the blur concept has changed my viewing skills.
what may be a factor also, is this is avery different image fromt he majority in the Shadows challenge; I wonder how this owoudl fare is it was in a group of other blurry images?? my guess is, it would hold on, but the still easily recognizable, or highly emotive images, again, would be favored.
Message edited by author 2007-08-13 10:59:51. |
|
|
|
08/13/2007 12:29:43 PM · #47 |
One take, scene totally set up. Very little light, 8 sec. exposure, F/14, hand held at waist in one hand while I painted the scene in with a small flashlight. No cropping and I took picture in black and white. In photoshop some contrast and add color, re-size and sharpen. Did the whole thing in about 25 Min's.
 |
|
|
|
08/13/2007 12:54:07 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by De Sousa:
by
For the record we’ll have:
- 37% scored this image in the group of a Bad Image!
- 21% scored this image in the group of a Good Image!
IMO this is an excellent photo and deserved much more recognition from people, but that didn’t happen.
WHY?
(yes, I know, this is not a sharp image! But I would like to go with the discussion a little further and try to figure why poeple (outside this group) doesn't find beauty in these kind of images) |
The image is disorienting. The divide comes between people who want to feel comfortable when looking at a picture, and people who want to be surprised by looking at a a picture. It is the difference between consumerism and art. I am frankly encouraged to see there were as many as 21% who liked it. |
|
|
|
08/13/2007 01:52:29 PM · #49 |
| I don't find it disorienting - I find it fascinating. The subject is very clear to me (maybe I'm just weird?) but it's the unique presentation - cutting off the bird, for instance, that makes it interesting. And the gait is very human-like. |
|
|
|
08/13/2007 09:14:31 PM · #50 |
feel free to discuss any of my stuff, most of which doesn't work. this is the only one i really like.
 |
|
